HomeMy WebLinkAbout191112aIndividuals requiring special accommodations are requested to contact the Office of the County Commissioners, 240.313.2200 Voice/TDD, to make
arrangements no later than ten (10) working days prior to the meeting.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
November 12, 2019
OPEN SESSION AGENDA
08:00 A.M. MOMENT OF SILENCE AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CALL TO ORDER, President Jeffrey A. Cline
APPROVAL OF MINUTES – October 23, 2019; October 29, 2019 & October 30, 2019
08:05 A.M. CLOSED SESSION
(To discuss the appointment, employment, assignment, promotion, discipline, demotion, compensation, removal, resignation, or
performance evaluation of appointees, employees, or officials over whom this public body has jurisdiction; or any other personnel matter
that affects one or more specific individuals; To consider a matter that concerns the proposal for a business or industrial organization to
locate, expand, or remain in the State; To consult with counsel to obtain legal advice on a legal matter; To comply with a specific
constitutional, statutory, or judicially imposed requirement that prevents public disclosures about a particular proceeding or matter; To
discuss public security, if the public body determines that public discussion would constitute a risk to the public or to public security,
including: (i) the development of fire and police services and staff; and (ii) the development and implementation of emergency plans.)
10:00 A.M. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION
10:05 A.M. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS AND COMMENTS
10:15 A.M. REPORTS FROM COUNTY STAFF
10:25 A.M. CITIZENS PARTICIPATION
10:30 A.M. PRESENTATION OF YOUTH MERITORIOUS AWARD – Allison Hartsthorn, Grant Manager,
Office of Grant Management, and Board of County Commissioners
10:35 A.M. AD HOC ETHICS COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – Julianna Albowicz, Chair and Members of
the Ad Hoc Ethics Ordinance Review Committee
11:00 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING: APPLICATION FOR ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT
RZ-19-005 – Jill Baker, Deputy Director, Department of Planning and Zoning
11:25 A.M. FIRST QUARTER ADJUSTMENTS TO THE WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION’S FY2020 GENERAL FUND BUDGET – Mr. Jeffrey Proulx, Chief Operating
Officer, Washington County Public Schools and Mr. David Brandenburg, Executive Director of
Finance, Washington County Public Schools
Jeffrey A. Cline,
Terry L. Baker, Vice President
Krista L. Hart, Clerk
Cort F. Meinelschmidt
Randall E. Wagner
Individuals requiring special accommodations are requested to contact the Office of the County Commissioners, 240.313.2200 Voice/TDD, to make
arrangements no later than ten (10) working days prior to the meeting.
11:35 A.M. TO SUPPORT JOB PROFILING FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND EMPLOYERS
THROUGH THE WORK KEYS AND WORK READY COMMUNITIES PROGRAM – Susan Small,
Director, Department of Business Development and Dr. James Klauber, President, Hagerstown
Community College
11:45 A.M. MARYLAND AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION PROGRAM 60/40 MATCH FOR
FY2020 – Chris Boggs, Land Preservation Planner, Department of Planning and Zoning
11:50 A.M. KB FARM PROPERTIES, LLC CONSERVATION RESERVE ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
EASEMENT PROPOSAL – Chris Boggs, Land Preservation Planner, Department of Planning and
Zoning
11:55 A.M. BATTERY STORAGE PROJECTS – PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES AGREEMENTS – Stephen
Wiley, Innolith Snook LLC
12:10 P.M. HAGERSTOWN URBAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT – CAPITAL BOND BILL GRANT
APPLICATION SUBMISSION – Susan Buchanan, Director, Office of Grant Management
12:15 P.M. WASHINGTON COUNTY PUBLIC SERVICE ACADEMY – CAPITAL BOND BILL GRANT
APPLICATION SUBMISSION – Scott Hobbs, Director, Division of Engineering and Susan
Buchanan, Director, Office of Grant Management
12:20 P.M. CONSTRUCTION BID AWARD - PROFESSIONAL BOULEVARD BRIDGE – Scott Hobbs,
Director, Division of Engineering
12:25 P.M. CONSTRUCTION BID AWARD - BACK ROAD – Scott Hobbs, Director, Division of Engineering
12:30 P.M. MINIMUM WAGE ANALYSIS – Sara Greaves, Chief Financial Officer and Rachel Brown,
Director, Human Resources
12:45 P.M. FY2019 YEAR END REPORT – Sara Greaves, Chief Financial Officer
01:00 P.M. RECESS
01:30 P.M. DEPART FOR 1 EAST FRANKLIN STREET, HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND
02:00 P.M. JOINT MEETING: CITY OF HAGERSTOWN MAYOR & COUNCIL
Location: 2nd Floor of City Hall, 1 East Franklin Street, Hagerstown, Maryland
•Chronic Tax Sale Parcel update
•Automatic and Mutual Aid Agreement
•Emergency Services Funding
03:00 P.M. RECESS
03:05 P.M. DEPART FOR 100 WEST WASHINGTON STREET, HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND
03:35 P.M. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION
Individuals requiring special accommodations are requested to contact the Office of the County Commissioners, 240.313.2200 Voice/TDD, to make
arrangements no later than ten (10) working days prior to the meeting.
03:40 P.M. CONVEYANCE OF REAL PROPERTY TO STATE OF MARYLAND – EASTERN AND
JEFFERSON BOULEVARD – Todd Moser, Real Property Administrator, Division of Engineering
and Scott Hobbs, Director, Division of Engineering
03:45 P.M. CORRECTION OF CONVEYANCE ERROR – Todd Moser, Real Property Administrator, Division
of Engineering
03:50 P.M. GRANT OF EASEMENT OF STATE OF MARYLAND – Todd Moser, Real Property
Administrator, Division of Engineering
03:55 P.M. HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 2019-2020 WINTER WEATHER OPERATIONS UPDATE – Andrew
Eshleman, Director, Public Works; Zane Rowe, Deputy Director, Public Works – Highways
04:00 P.M. HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT POSITION REASSIGNMENT PLAN – Andrew Eshleman, Director,
Public Works; Zane Rowe, Deputy Director, Public Works – Highways
04:10 P.M. NORTHERN PUMP STATION – CHANGE ORDER – Mark Bradshaw, P.E., Deputy Director,
Engineering Services
04:15 P.M. INSTALL SEWER PRIOR TO HAGERS CROSSING PAVING THEIR ENTRANCE ONTO
MCDADE ROAD – Mark Bradshaw, P.E., Deputy Director, Engineering Services
04:20 P.M. INSTALL SEWER LINE UNDER MD 144 – Mark Bradshaw, P.E., Deputy Director, Engineering
Services
04:30 P.M. ADJOURNMENT
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Youth Meritorious Award Presentation
PRESENTATION DATE: November 12, 2019
PRESENTATION BY: Allison Hartshorn, Grant Manager, Office of Grant Management and Board
of County Commissioners
RECOMMENDED MOTION: No motion or action is requested or recommended.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The following individuals have been selected for the Youth Meritorious
Award. They were selected based on their scholastic achievement, leadership qualities, community
service performed or other positive contributions to their school or community.
Austin Miller –North Hagerstown High School-Family Center
Parent(s) – Angie Wilcox
Hometown – Hagerstown
Nominated by Kim Dudley
DISCUSSION: N/A
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
CONCURRENCES: N/A
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: Student Summary
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
Youth Meritorious Award Summary for:
Austin Miller
North Hagerstown High School
Nominated By: Kim Dudley
Parent(s) – Angie Wilcox
Kim Dudley endorsed the following:
In March 2019, Austin was referred to and began attending the High School credit program at
the Washington County Family Center. He was referred by Konner Pruett, Guidance Counselor
at North High. Austin, then a 12th grade student, was at risk of not graduating because he was
having a difficult time juggling the responsibilities of being a working teen parent of a four
month old son while attending traditional school. Through Austin's participation in the High
School Credit Program he was able to complete his remaining requirements to earn a high
school diploma and graduated in June 2019. During his time in the program, Austin was a
positive male role model for other young parents by demonstrating nurturing parenting practices
and interactions with his son. On May 30, 2019 during the Center's graduation celebration,
Austin was recognized for his commitment to and continual presence in his son's life and was
presented with the Father Involvement Award. Through personal achievement, hard work and
father involvement, Austin has begun laying the foundation that promotes positive impacts for
his son's lifelong well-being.
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Ad Hoc Ethics Review Committee Report and Findings
PRESENTATION DATE: November 12, 2019
PRESENTATION BY: Julianna Albowicz, Chair and Members of the Ad Hoc Ethics
Ordinance Review Committee
RECOMMENDED MOTION: For informational purposes.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The Ad Hoc Ethics Ordinance Review Committee will present its report
and recommendations.
DISCUSSION: Following its constitution, the Committee met numerous times to study and
discuss the Ethics Ordinance and consider changes thereto. The Committee also held a public
hearing. After further discussion, the Committee is ready to present its report to the Board.
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
CONCURRENCES: N/A
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: N/A
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Application for Zoning Text Amendment RZ-19-005
PRESENTATION DATE: November 12, 2019
PRESENTATION BY: Jill Baker, Deputy Director, Department of Planning and Zoning
RECOMMENDED MOTION: The purpose of this public hearing is to take public comment on the
rezoning application. The Commissioners have the option to take action to either approve or deny the
request after the public hearing closes or deliberate on the issue at a later date.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: Application is being made to amend several sections of the Zoning Ordinance
to address uses associated with alcohol production facilities.
DISCUSSION: The alcohol production industry has begun to evolve from just a manufacturing use
into an interactive customer experience through educational demonstrations, facility tours, and
sampling areas to promote their products. This evolution has created new opportunities for smaller
businesses to create niche economies that provide unique experiences for consumers. The purpose of
these amendments is to update the ordinance to consolidate and streamline the definitions for different
types of alcohol production facilities and where they should be located. Alcohol production facilities
are proposed to be permitted in the Rural Business (RB), Business General (BG), Industrial Restricted
(IR), and Industrial General (IG) districts and special exception uses in the Agriculture Rural (AR),
Environmental Conservation (EC), Preservation (P), Rural Village (RV), Residential Transition (RT),
Residential Suburban (RS), Residential Urban (RU), Residential Multi-family (RM), Business Local
(BL) districts. Farm based Alcohol Production Facilities are proposed to be permitted in the AR, EC,
P, and RB districts and special exception uses in the RV district.
This item was presented to the Washington County Planning Commission at a Public Information
Meeting held during their regular meeting on August 5, 2019. It was then brought back for
recommendation at the September 9, 2019 meeting, where the members unanimously recommended
approval of the proposed text amendments with comments. Changes requested by the Planning
Commission are addressed in the attached proposed text amendments document.
FISCAL IMPACT: n/a
CONCURRENCES: Washington County Planning Commission
ALTERNATIVES: n/a
ATTACHMENTS: Proposed text amendments, staff report, Planning Commission minutes, Planning
Commission recommendation and written public comments
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: none
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
RZ-19-005
PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS FOR PUBLIC INPUT MEETING
ALCOHOL PRODUCTION FACILITIES
Planning Commission Recommendations after Public Input Meeting
Proposed Amendments prior to Public Input Meeting
(1) ARTICLE 3 – DISTRICTS ESTABLISHED; ZONING MAPS, DISTRICT BOUNDARIES;
LAND USE REGULATIONS (RURAL AREA USES) is amended to eliminate the column
titled “Intensity of Use” in its entirety.
(2) ARTICLE 3 – DISTRICTS ESTABLISHED; ZONING MAPS, DISTRICT BOUNDARIES;
LAND USE REGULATIONS (RURAL AREA USES) is amended as follows:
Section 3.3 (1) Table of Land Use Regulations
A(R)-Agriculture (Rural)
EC-Environmental Conservation
P-Preservation
RV-Rural Village RB-Rural Business IM-Industrial Mineral
Table No. 3.3(1)
TABLE OF LAND USE REGULATIONS
(RURAL AREA USES)
L ND USES A(R) EC P RV RB IM
K. Manu actu ing
B e e , Farm ith a valid Class 8 manufactu ing license P P P P P N
Brewery, Commercial with a valid Class 5 manufacturing SE SE SE SE P N
Wineries, Farm with a valid Class 4 manufacturing license P P P P P N
Wineries, Commercial with a valid Class 3 manufacturing license SE SE SE SE P N
Alcohol Production Facility SE SE SE SE P N
Alcohol Production Facility, Farm Based P P P SE P N
P-Permitted
SE-Special Exception
A-Accessory
N-Not Permitted
(3) ARTICLE 7A “RT” RESIDENTIAL, TRANSITION DISTRICT is amended as follows:
Section 7A.2 Special Exception Uses (Requiring Board Authorization After Public Hearing)
(h) Alcohol Production Facilities
(4) ARTICLE 8 “RS” RESIDENTIAL, SUBURBAN DISTRICT is amended as follows:
Section 8.2 Special Exception Uses (Requiring Board Authorization After Public Hearing)
(k) Alcohol Production Facilities
(5) ARTICLE 9 “RU” RESIDENTIAL, URBAN DISTRICT is amended as follows:
Section 9.2 Special Exception Uses (Requiring Board Authorization After Public Hearing)
(k) Alcohol Production Facilities
(6) ARTICLE 10 “RM” RESIDENTIAL, MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT is amended as follows:
Section 10.2 Special Exception Uses (Requiring Board Authorization After Public Hearing)
(l) Alcohol Production Facilities
(3)(7) ARTICLE 11 “BL” BUSINESS, LOCAL DISTRICT is amended as follows:
Section 11.3 Special Exception Uses (Requiring Board Authorization After Public Hearing)
d) Alcohol Production Facility
(4)(8) ARTICLE 12 “BG” BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT is amended as follows:
Section 12.1 Principal Permitted Uses
(b) Alcohol Production Facility
(5)(9) ARTICLE 13 “IR” INDUSTRIAL GENERAL DISTRICT is amended as follows:
Section 13.1 Principal Permitted Uses
(a) Uses of a light industrial nature including, but not limited to the following:
Alcohol Production Facility
(6)(10) ARTICLE 14 “IG” INDUSTRIAL, GENERAL DISTRICT is amended as follows:
Section 14.1 Principal Permitted Uses
(a) Uses of a general industrial nature, but not limited to the following:
Manufacture and bottling of alcoholic beverage Alcohol Production Facility
(7)(11) ARTICLE 28A DEFINITIONS is amended as follows:
Alcohol Production Facility:
An establishment for the manufacturing, bottling, packaging, storage, promotion and sale
of alcoholic beverages produced in accordance with a state-issued manufacturing license.
Accessory uses at such facilities may include tasting rooms, accessory food sales related to
alcohol production, sales of novelty and gift items related to the manufacturing operation, and the
sale of alcoholic beverages produced on-site.
Alcohol Production Facility, Farm-Based:
An establishment located on agriculturally assessed land for the manufacturing,
packaging, storage, promotion and sale of alcoholic beverages produced in accordance with a
state-issued manufacturing license utilizing ingredients produced on the associated farm.
Accessory uses at such facilities may include tasting rooms, accessory food sales related to
alcohol production, sales of novelty and gift items related to the manufacturing operation, and the
sale of alcoholic beverages produced on-site.
Brewery, Commercial:
An establishment with facilities for manufacturing and bottling malt beverages for sale on-
site or through wholesale or retail outlets in accordance with a valid Class 5 manufacturing license
from the State of Maryland. A commercial brewery is a brewery that does not meet the definition
of a Farm Brewery. Accessory uses may include beer tasting rooms at which beer tasting occurs,
accessory food sales related to the beer tasting, and the sale of beer produced on site. The area
for beer tasting, accessory food sales related to the beer tasting, and sales of beer produced on-
site shall not exceed 25 percent of the area of the structures located on-site and being used for
manufacturing and bottling.
Brewery, Farm:
An establishment located on a farm with a producing hopfield or similar growing area which
may have facilities for brewing, processing, bottling, packaging, and storage of beer on the
premises where the owner or lessee manufactures beer in accordance with a valid Class 8
manufacturing license from the State of Maryland. If the Farm Brewery produces beer on site, at
a minimum, Farm Breweries must produce at least 2 acres of the agricultural products used in
processing the beer on-site at the Farm Brewery. Accessory uses at the Farm Brewery may
include tasting rooms at which beer tasting occurs, accessory food sales related to the beer
tasting, sales of novelty and gift items related to the beer and processing facility, sales of beers
produced on-site, occasional promotional events, and guided tours. The area for beer tasting,
accessory food sales related to the beer tasting, and sales of novelty and gift items related to the
beer and processing facility shall not exceed 25 percent of the area of the structures located at
the farm and being used for the Farm Brewery. A Farm Brewery and its accessory uses shall be
considered a bona fide and normal agricultural activity and an agricultural land management
activity. A Zoning Permit and Site Plan approval is not required for a Farm Brewery that includes
a tasting room, accessory food sales related to the beer tasting, sales of novelty and gift items
related to the beer. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Farm Brewery with a tasting room shall be
required to file with the County Division of Plan Review and Permitting, evidence that the vehicular
access to the Farm Brewery used by patrons satisfies the County sight distance requirements set
forth in the County's "Policy for Determining Adequacy of Existing Highways" if such vehicular
access is onto a County public road.
Winery, Commercial:
An establishment with facilities for manufacturing and bottling wine for sale onsite or
through wholesale or retail outlets in accordance with a valid Class 3 manufacturing license from
the State of Maryland. A commercial winery is a winery that does not meet the definition of a Farm
Winery. Accessory uses may include wine tasting rooms at which wine tasting occurs, accessory
food sales related to wine tasting, and the sale of wine produced on site. The area for wine tasting,
accessory food sales related to the wine tasting, and sales wine produced on-site shall not exceed
25 percent of the area of the structures located at the and being used for manufacturing and
bottling.
Winery, Farm:
An establishment located on a farm with a producing vineyard, orchard, or similar growing
area which may have facilities for fermenting, processing, bottling, packaging, and storage of
wine, sparkling wine and/or juice on the premises where the owner or lessee manufactures wine
and/or sparkling wine in accordance with a valid Class 4 manufacturing license from the State of
Maryland. If the Farm Winery produces wine, sparkling wine and/or juice on the premises, the
Farm Winery must produce at least 2 acres of the agricultural products used in processing the
wine, sparkling wine and/or juice on-site at the Farm Winery. Accessory uses at the Farm Winery
may include tasting rooms at which wine tasting occurs, accessory food sales related to the wine
tasting, sales of novelty and gift items related to the wine and the vineyard, sales of wines
produced on-site, occasional promotional events related to the wine and the vineyard, and guided
tours. The area for wine tasting, accessory food sales related to the wine tasting, and sales of
novelty and gift items related to the wine and the vineyard shall not exceed 25 percent of the area
of the structures located at the farm and being used for the Farm Winery. A Farm Winery and its
accessory uses shall be considered a bona fide and normal agricultural activity and an agricultural
land management activity. A Zoning Permit and Site Plan approval is not required for a Farm
Winery that includes a tasting room, accessory food sales related to the wine tasting, sales of
novelty and gift items related to the wine and the vineyard, sales of wines produced on-site.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Farm Winery with a tasting room shall be required to file with the
County Division of Plan Review and Permitting evidence that the vehicular access to the Farm
Winery used by patrons satisfies the County sight distance requirements set forth in the County's
"Policy for Determining Adequacy of Existing Highways" if such vehicular access is onto a County
public road.
I�
:� ��� Washington County
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING j LAND PRESERVATION I FOREST CONSERVATION I GIS
RZ-19-005 August 5, 2019
WASHINGTON COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
STAFF REPORT AND ANALYSIS
ARTICLES 3, 11, 12,14,28A
Proposal: Application is being made to amend several sections of the Zoning Ordinance to
address uses associated with alcohol production facilities.
Staff Report: Alcohol production facilities are not a new land use to Washington County.
However, the location and marketing of such uses continue to evolve. Historically, these types of
uses were characterized as being similar to any other beverage manufacturing and/or bottling
facility. But more recently the alcohol manufacturing industry has begun to evolve from just a
manufacturing use into an interactive customer experience through educational demonstrations,
facility tours, and sampling areas to promote their products. This evolution has created new
opportunities for smaller businesses to create niche economies that provide unique experiences for
consumers. The purpose of these amendments is to update the ordinance to consolidate and
streamline the definitions for different types of alcohol manufacturing facilities and where they
should be located.
Analysis: As alcohol production facilities and State required alcohol manufacturing licenses have
continued to evolve, the County has attempted to accommodate these uses in the Zoning
Ordinance. In 2012, the County took its first action toward incorporating new types of alcohol
manufacturing uses into the Zoning Ordinance. At that time wineries and breweries were defined
and listed as principal and special exception uses in several districts based upon the type of State
alcohol manufacturing license. Farm wineries and breweries as well as limited commercial
wineries and breweries were defined and included in various commercial, industrial, and rural
districts in the County.
Over the last several years new types of manufacturing licenses have been approved by the
State legislature. They include pub -breweries, micro -breweries, and distilleries. As mentioned
previously, changes were also made to existing manufacturing licenses to change regulations
regarding the sale, distribution, and manufacturing processes. Because this industry continues to
evolve, the proposed amendments are being offered to help consolidate and streamline the
definitions and permitted locations for alcohol production facilities as a whole rather than associate
the uses with specific manufacturing licenses that are subject to change during each legislative
session.
100 West Washington Street, Suite 2600 j Hagerstown, MD 21740 1 P: 240.313.2430 1 F: 240.313.24311 TDD: 7-1-1
WWW.WASHCO-MRNET
To consolidate the definitions of the various types of alcohol production facilities a new
definition is being proposed to -cover all types of alcohol manufacture. There is also a new
definition proposed to allow for farm -based facilities in the rural areas of the County similar to
how they are permitted currently.
Because of the consolidated definitions, proposed amendments also include streamlining
the zoning districts in which these types of uses shall be permitted. In this case, alcohol production
facilities are proposed to be permitted as follows:
• Principally Permitted. In the urban area the use shall be principally permitted in
the Business, General (BG), Industrial Restricted (IR), and Industrial, General (IG)
districts. By allowing the use in these districts they shall also be principally
permitted in the Planned Business (PB) and Highway Interchange (HI) zoning
districts through cross references. In the rural areas, these uses shall be principally
permitted in the Rural Business (RB) floating zone district.
• Special Exception Use. In the urban area the use may be permitted as a special
exception in the Business Local (BL) district. In the rural areas the use may be
permitted by special exception in the Agriculture Rural (AR), Environmental
Conservation (EC), Preservation (P), and Rural Village (RV) districts.
Farm -based alcohol production facilities are proposed to be permitted as follows:
Principally Permitted. Because of the agricultural component of the farm -based
facility definition, the use is only permitted in the rural area zoning districts of AR,
EC, P and RB (Floating Zone).
Special Exception Use. Even though the definition requires an agricultural
component to the facility operation, the use is proposed to be a special exception
use in the Rural Village (RV) zoning district. While rural villages are located
primarily in the rural areas, they have characteristics that include a denser
residential presence than other rural area throughout the County. The potential for
a manufacturing/commercial type use to lie within a close proximity to existing
residential areas prompted the decision to allow these uses through a special
exception process.
Staff Recommendation: Based upon feedback and comments from other government agencies,
developers, property owners, and the general public, Staff recommends approval of these
amendments in order to provide consistent implementation of our land use policies and regulations.
Respectfully submitted,
�f
Jill L. Baker
Deputy Director
This is an excerpt of the approved Planning Commission minutes for August 5, 2019.
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING
August 5, 2019
The Washington County Planning Commission held a public information meeting and its regular monthly
meeting on Monday, August 5, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. at the Washington County Administration Building, 100
W. Washington Street, Room 2000, Hagerstown, MD.
Commission members present at the meeting were: Clint Wiley, Denny Reeder, BJ Goetz, Jeremiah
Weddle and Ex-officio County Commissioner Randall Wagner. Staff members present were: Washington
County Department of Planning & Zoning: Stephen Goodrich, Director; Jill Baker, Deputy Director; and
Debra Eckard, Administrative Assistant; Washington County Department of Plan Review & Permitting:
Ashley Holloway, Director; and Lisa Kelly, Senior Planner.
PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING
RZ-19-005 – Alcohol Production Facilities Text Amendment
Staff Presentation
Ms. Baker presented a proposed text amendment to the Washington County Zoning Ordinance for Alcohol
Production Facilities. She noted that the Zoning Ordinance currently contains uses for farm wineries,
commercial wineries, limited commercial wineries and farm breweries, commercial breweries and limited
commercial breweries. New legislation from the State of Maryland includes distilleries as another type of
alcohol production facility being offered through the manufacturing licenses. The proposed amendment
will help consolidate and streamline the definitions and permitted locations for alcohol production
facilities as a whole rather than associate the uses with specific manufacturing licenses that are subject to
change during each legislative session. Farm based alcohol production facilities will require the use of
ingredients that are produced on the site.
Ms. Baker briefly reviewed the areas throughout the County where these types of alcohol production
facilities would be permitted. Regular alcohol production facilities would be a special exception use in the
rural areas including the A(R), EC, P and RV districts and inside the growth area in the BL district. They
would be a permitted use in the BG, IR, and IG districts. The farm-based alcohol production facilities would
be permitted in the A(R), EC, P and RB zoning districts and a special exception use in the RV zoning district.
Public Comment
• Dan Spedden, President of Hagerstown/Washington County Convention and Visitor’s Bureau, 41
Mealy Parkway, Hagerstown – Mr. Spedden stated that wineries, breweries and distilleries are
currently very popular in the travel industry and becoming very commonplace in the cities. He
noted that the tourism economy in Washington County is a $260 million market annually with the
number one business being the food and beverage industry. Mr. Spedden believes these facilities
will enhance the economy in Washington County.
• Selena Wilkes, Elmwood Farm Bed and Breakfast, 16311 Kendall Road, Williamsport – Ms. Wilkes
stated that Elmwood Farm is located in a residential area; however, she believes that an alcohol
production facility would be an added benefit as an accessory use to her business and would boost
This is an excerpt of the approved Planning Commission minutes for August 5, 2019.
tourism and economic development in the County. She expressed her opinion that the alcohol
farm-based production facilities should be permitted in the residential areas as a special exception
use.
• Nathan Kraft, 5513 Mt. Carmel Church Road, Keedysville – Mr. Kraft supports the proposed text
amendment. He owns a 42 acre farm (Pathfinder Farm) on which he would like to grow crops and
produce alcohol for sale. He expressed his opinion that wineries, breweries, and distilleries should
be a special exception use in residential areas. He believes that people want an “experience”
rather than going to a store.
• Kevin Atticks, Grow and Fortify, 1950 Far Out Lane, Sparks – Mr. Atticks stated that there is
incredible growth and diversification in the tourism industry. He noted that the majority of visitors
are coming from more than one hour way. Mr. Atticks gave two suggestions for the proposed text
amendment. First, he believes there should be a path (i.e. special exception) that would allow
these facilities in any zoning district; there should not be any zoning districts excluded. Second,
he believes there should be a provision to allow off-site production and discussed various factors
that could contribute to a producer needing the resources of others. Mr. Atticks briefly discussed
the issue of sensitive crops being sprayed from adjacent properties. He believes that all property
owners have the right to use all of their property and education of all agricultural crop producers
would be the key in avoiding harm to other property owners’ crops. Mr. Atticks is opposed to any
buffers being implemented.
• Jason Divelbiss, 11125 Bemisderfer Road, Greencastle – Mr. Divelbiss believes the alcohol
production facilities would be an economic benefit for the County. He expressed his opinion that
these types of facilities should be permitted in the urban area residential zoning districts as a
special exception. The special exception process would provide a way to make sure the property
is appropriate for this type of use. He pointed out that the urban area residential zoning districts
already allow for several commercial uses by special exception. Mr. Divelbiss noted that many
residential properties will not be able to attain a State alcohol manufacturing license.
Discussion and Comments
Mr. Weddle asked members of the audience questions about growing grapes and the life expectancy of
grapes. He expressed his concern with regard to spraying crops (i.e. soybeans) on adjoining properties
and the harmful effects these sprays (Dicamba) could have on grapes. Mr. Atticks noted he has talked to
the Farm Bureau regarding these concerns and strictly from a land use perspective, the proposed text
amendment is concentrating on the land use and not the specific type of crops that can be grown. Mr.
Weddle expressed his opinion that these problems will arise in the future and he believes now is the time
to address them. He believes that there should be mandatory setbacks associated with the more intensive
operation. Placing the setbacks on a soybean farmer would create a hardship for that farmer. Mr. Atticks
responded that a limitation such as this would “unilaterally give deference to existing grain farmers over
new agriculture”. Secondly, this discussion is on a commercial product (Dicamba) being sprayed which is
part of a national controversy because of its propensity to drift and kill everything around it. Ms. Baker
stated that while she understands Mr. Weddle’s concern, it is her opinion that setbacks would have to be
placed on all agricultural properties, not just new agricultural uses. Setbacks would be based on the type
of crop you are growing each year and there would be no way to monitor or enforce this type of
regulation.
• Yvonne Ford, 12840 Red Heifer Winery Lane – Ms. Ford noted that regulations have already been
established by the Environmental Protection Agency regarding this issue.
This is an excerpt from the approved Planning Commission minutes for September 9, 2019.
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AND
PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING
September 9, 2019
The Washington County Planning Commission held a public information meeting and its regular monthly
meeting on Monday, September 9, 2019 at 6:30 p.m. at the Washington County Administration Building,
100 W. Washington Street, Room 2000, Hagerstown, MD.
Commission members present at the meeting were: Clint Wiley, Denny Reeder, David Kline, Jeremiah
Weddle and Ex-officio County Commissioner Randall Wagner. Staff members present were: Washington
County Department of Planning & Zoning: Stephen Goodrich, Director; Jill Baker, Deputy Director; Travis
Allen, Comprehensive Planner; and Debra Eckard, Administrative Assistant; Washington County
Department of Plan Review & Permitting: Ashley Holloway, Director; and Lisa Kelly, Senior Planner.
RZ-19-005 Alcohol Production Facilities
Ms. Baker reminded Commission members that a text amendment to the Washington County Zoning
Ordinance was presented at the August 5th public information meeting. Proposed amendments include
Articles 3, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 28A for Alcohol Production Facilities.
Discussion and Comments: Mr. Wiley expressed his opinion that the alcohol production facilities should
be allowed in residential areas as a special exception use. Other commission members agreed. Ms. Baker
asked if the Commission would like to establish bulk requirements [i.e. setbacks, lot sizes, lot widths, etc.]
for these facilities. If specific bulk requirements are not established, there is a category within the Zoning
Ordinance that would apply to these types of facilities. Commission members were not inclined to add
specific bulk requirements.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Reeder made a motion to recommend approval to the Board of County
Commissioners of the staff’s draft text amendments with the inclusion of the residential districts as a
special exception. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kline and unanimously approved with Commissioner
Wagner abstaining from the vote.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING | LAND PRESERVATION | FOREST CONSERVATION | GIS
WWW.WASHCO-MD.NET
100 West Washington Street , Suite 2600 | Hagerstown, MD 21740 | P: 240.313.2430 | F: 240.313.2431 | TDD: 7-1-1
September 24, 2019 RZ-19-005
APPLICATION FOR TEXT AMENDMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Articles: 3, 11, 12, 14, 28A
RECOMMENDATION
On August 5, 2019, the Planning Commission held a public rezoning information meeting to consider text
amendments to Articles 3, 11, 12, 14, and 28A of the Washington County Zoning Ordinance to address
alcohol production facilities (aka wineries, breweries, distilleries, etc.). A staff summary of the purpose
and effects of the proposed amendments was presented to the Planning Commission and opportunity
was provided for public comment. Several verbal and written comments were received for this case.
Written comments are included with this recommendation. The Washington County Planning
Commission took action at its regular meeting held on Monday, September 9, 2019 to recommend
approval of Text Amendment RZ-19-002 to the Board of County Commissioners, with an added
recommendation to also allow alcohol production facilities as a special exception use in all residential
districts.
Copies of the application and the Staff Report and Analysis by the Department of Planning & Zoning,
approved minutes of the August 5, 2019 public information meeting, draft minutes of the September 9,
2019 regular meeting, and written public comments are attached.
Respectfully submitted,
Stephen T. Goodrich, Director
Washington County Department of
Planning & Zoning
STG/jlb
Attachments
cc: Kirk Downey
file
The following language has been developed through our work with various counties over the
years. It is meant to provide a basis from which to then assign these definitions to certain zones,
and with any restrictions deemed appropriate by the local jurisdiction.
They are intentionally broad, defining "alcohol production facility" —rather than winery, brewery,
distillery, cidery, meadery; or specific classes of state -issued licenses —in an effort to avoid the
need for future revisions when new alcohol producer segments develop.
1) Alcohol Production Facility: An establishment for the manufacturing, packaging,
storage, promotion and sale of alcohol beverages produced by a state -issued license
holder, which may include an on -site tasting room(s) for the production and sale of
products as licensed.
2) Farm Alcohol Production Facility: An establishment on agricultural land for the
manufacturing, packaging, storage, promotion and sale of alcoholic beverages produced
by a state -issued license holder utilizing ingredients produced on an associated farm,
which may include an on -site tasting room(s) for the promotion and sale of products as
licensed.
3) Tasting Room: An area on the site of an Alcohol Production Facility or a Farm Alcohol
Production Facility in which guests may sample and purchase for on- or off -premise
consumption goods produced by the license holder and other related novelty or gift
items.
If you have questions or would like support from the industry, please contact Janna Howley or
Kevin Atticks with Grow & Fortify. 410-252-9463 / kevin@growandfortify.com /
janna@growandfortify.com
Sincerely,
-41, 4 6
- W'
evin Atticks, D
Founder & CE
Cultivating an environment where value-added agricultural producers,
startups, operators and growers innovate and thrive.
6247 Falls Road • Suite G • Baltimore, Maryland 21209 • 410-252-9463 • info@growandfortify.com
y Y l 7
r � �
L UE- r,D T G .A G P,9 C U L T iJ ': F
July 8, 2019
TO: Washington County Planning Commission
RE: Alcohol production text amendment proposal
Dear Mr. Chair and Members of the Planning Commission,
I'm writing to commend Jill Baker and the Dept. of Planning & Zoning staff for incorporating many of
our suggestions into the alcohol producer draft for discussion this evening. I also wish to provide
additional information for the discussion.
In response to the county's comments on the new draft, I would ask for your consideration of the
following items:
1) Applicable Zones. Through our experience around the state, we have found alcohol production
facilities to be successfully —and appropriately —located in all manner of zones, from
manufacturing and industrial, to commercial and residential. We respectfully urge you to consider
creating a path to approval in all zones, while adding whatever protections you deem appropriate
(i.e., conditional use, special exception, variance).
2) Sales of products. Our state laws have evolved to allow manufacturing flexibility, enabling a
licensee to flex some of its production (often within specified limits) to another location. For
example, a small brewery that has excess demand one of their beers could produce that beer at a
neighboring brewery who has larger capacity. We urge your consideration to allow an alcohol
licensee to market all products it produces, not just those produced on -site. This is extremely
common in the wine, beer and spirits production industries,. and is not restricted in other
jurisdictions_
Thank you for your consideration of our suggestions, and for your continued support of our alcohol and
farm -based alcohol industries.
S' c rely,
Atticks 6-'evi
s
Executive Director
Maryland Wineries Association, Brewers Association of Maryland, Maryland Distillers Guild
CC: Jill Baker, Deputy Director
Dept. of Planning & Zoning
6247 Falls Road • Suite G • Baltimore, Maryland 21209 •410-252-9463 • info@growandfortfy.com
April 1, 2019
ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT
AMENDMENTS (RZ-19-001)
1. IN GENERAL
A. Use of the term "alcohol manufacturing" implies a large-scale operation rather than
the more common smaller scale production facilities.
B. Therefore, use of the term "alcohol production facility" would be more appropriate.
2. IMPRACTICAL TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN TYPES OF ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGES; JUST HAVE TWO (2) TYPES OF FACILITIES
A. Alcohol Production Facility: A production facility or establishment for the
manufacture of alcoholic beverages by a state -licensed distillery, winery, rectifier, or
brewery.
i. Should not include the additional activities such as storage and bottling due to
the risk of aparty taking the position that ALL such activities are required in
order to meet the definition.
B. Farm -Based Alcohol Production Facility: An. Alcohol Production Facility located on
any parcel of land that has an agricultural use assessment as determined by the
Maryland State Department of Assessments and Taxation.
i. Analogous to the existing definition of "Agricultural Operation".
i, Existing definitions for Farm Brewery & Farm Winery, as well as the proposed
new definition of "Farm Distillery" contain the following statement, indicating
an intent to treat the use as an Agricultural activity: "shall be considered a bona
fide and normal agricultural activity and an agricultural land management
activity".
iii. Requiring use of the ag. products grown on site in the alcohol product process
disregards the risk of: (i) changes in State regs. that could limit or prohibit their
use for some reason; (ii) success i.e, production outgrowing the scale or
character of the on -site ag. products; (iii) markets i.e. could be cheaper to buy
the raw materials to be used in production; and (iv) seasonal or other
unexpected damage or impacts to on -site ag. products that could prohibit their
use.
3. DON'T CONTRADICT THE PARAMETERS OF THE STATE LICENSING
REGS.
i. Extent of accessory uses will be determined by licensing regulations and
parameters;
1. For example:
a. Class 7 "Micro -brewery License" may brew and bottle, contract to
brew and bottle, store finished product, enter into a temporary
delivery agreement to deliver beer to a festival, etc, and there are
limitations on production, on -sale and off -sale privileges, hours & days
of operation, etc.
b. The proposed new definition for a "Limited Commercial Brewery" only
specifically references the ability to conduct tours, have tasting areas,
have accessory food sales, etc, and places a limitation on the area for
tasting and food sales to 25% of the area being used for
manufacturing and bottling.
c. Why create the potential for conflict between the State and local reps?
ii. Extent of accessory uses will also be limited by the standard definition of
"Accessory Use" in the Zoning Ordinance i.e. a use customarily incidental and
subordinate to the principal use.
iii. Specifically, 25% area limitation is arbitrary, discourages growth and ignores
the fact that practical circumstances should dictate.
4. POSITIVE ECONOMIC BENEFIT TO WASH. CO.
A. Alcoholic production facilities in Maryland and across the country are increasingly
stimulating tourism, nontraditional agricultural activity, and positive economic
development & revitalization efforts.
B. Therefore, use should be permitted liberally wherever appropriate:
By right in BG, RB and IG, as proposed, but also in the IR;
ii. By Special Exception in the Ag. Districts (A(R); EC; P; and RV) and BL, as
proposed, but also in the Residential Districts (RT; RS; RU; and RM) similar to
the manner in which the following commercial uses are permitted in those same
districts:
1. Professional offices;
2. Beauty parlors & Barbershops;
3. Nursing Homes;
4. Medical & Dental clinics;
5. Golf courses && country clubs;
2
6. Bed & Breakfast,
7. Banquet & Reception facilities
a. In the RS, RU, and RM„ the following additional uses are permitted by
Special Exception:
i. Clubs, lodges & fraternal organizations;
ii. Nursery Schools or child care centers;
iii. Although perhaps not necessary to specify, should also be allowed as an
accessory component of any restaurant, tavern, liquor store, or other food -
service type establishment such as banquet/reception facilities or clubs, Iodges
& fraternal organizations (Redman CIub or PFGC)
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: First Quarter Adjustments to the Washington County Board of Education’s
FY2020 General Fund Budget
PRESENTATION DATE: November 12, 2019
PRESENTATION BY: Mr. Jeffrey Proulx, Chief Operating Officer, Washington County Public Schools
and Mr. David Brandenburg, Executive Director of Finance, Washington County Public Schools
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the requested first quarter adjustments to
the Board of Education’s FY2020 General Fund Budget.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The Annotated Code of Maryland requires local school systems to
periodically re-forecast their financial needs and make necessary changes to their budgets. To that
end, the Washington County Board of Education approved the attached list of changes to its
FY2020 General Fund Budget at its November 5, 2019 meeting.
DISCUSSION: Several of the changes that the Board of Education approved on November 5,
2019 cross major categories. Therefore, these requested adjustments must also be approved by the
Board of County Commissioners. The Board of Education has asked its Finance staff to review
the requested budget changes with the Commissioners and answer any questions that they may
have.
FISCAL IMPACT: None. These proposed modifications merely adjust the budget to allow for
proper categorization of revenues and expenses.
CONCURRENCES: The Board of Education’s Finance Committee reviewed the proposed
adjustments at their meeting on October 29, 2019, and recommended them for approval by the full
Board. The Board of Education unanimously approved these changes at their November 5, 2019
meeting.
ALTERNATIVES: None
ATTACHMENTS:
Proposed first quarter budget adjustments for the Washington County Board of
Education’s FY2020 General Fund Operating Budget.
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: None
Category Value The primary reason for variance is:
Revenue 170,492 Additional investment income and reimbursements from Project Open Space and the School
Construction Fund
Other Instructional Costs 195,350 Redeployment from instructional equipment to instructional materials and school allocation
adjustments
Total Expense
Reductions/Additional Revenue 365,842
Administration 87,500 To support State mandates and legal fees
Instructional Salaries 64,113 To restore substitute budget for school allocation adjustments
Instructional Textbooks and
Supplies 128,729 Redeployment from equipment to materials
Maintenance of Plant 85,500 Additional emerging maintenance needs
Total Expense
Increases/Reduced Revenue 365,842
Net Effect on Fund Balance 0
Washington County Public Schools
First Quarter FY2020 Budget Adjustments
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: To support Job Profiling for Washington County, Maryland employers through the Work Keys
and Work Ready Communities program(s).
PRESENTATION DATE: November 12, 2019
PRESENTATION BY: Susan Small, Director, Department of Business Development and Dr. James Klauber,
President, Hagerstown Community College
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Approve reallocation of Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) grant
funds previously awarded to Washington County, MD in the amount of $37,500 to Hagerstown Community
College’s FY20 ARC grant application and approve the use of Hotel Rental Tax of $37,500 to help meet the
50% match requirement.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The Washington County Department of Business Development is asking the Board
of County Commissioners of Washington County, MD to approve the use of the unused Appalachian Regional
Commission grant, along with Hotel Rental Tax (50% match) for a total of $75,000 for the sole purpose of Job
Profiling services by Washington County, MD employers. The use of ARC grant funds will match our
contribution of Hotel Rental Tax funds dollar to dollar, maximizing the funding available for local businesses.
DISCUSSION: Hagerstown Community College received preliminary approval to proceed with a formal
application from the Appalachian Regional Commission for a grant in the amount $57,000 (with requires local
match of $57,000) to conduct Workplace-Based Assessments to Meet Employer Needs. Washington County,
MD, was previously awarded a $75,000 Appalachian Regional Commission grant for website enhancements
that due to changes in scope was de-obligated and held for future projects. The Washington County
Department of Business Development is seeking approval to reallocate the Washington County, MD grant in
the amount of $37,500 to increase Hagerstown Community College’s request from $57,000 to $94,500 and
meet the 50% match of $94,500 in the following manner.
Appalachian Regional Commission = $94,500 grant funds
Match requirements/sources:
Hagerstown Community College = $57,000 (private funds and foundation)
Washington County, MD = $37,500 (Requesting allocation from Hotel Rental Tax)
Total Project = $189,000
FISCAL IMPACT: $37,500 from the Hotel Rental Tax for economic development projects.
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
CONCURRENCES: Director, Office of Grant Management
ALTERNATIVES: Deny reallocation of Appalachian Regional Commission funds for this project or
consider a contribution from Hotel Rental Tax only.
ATTACHMENTS: Hagerstown Community College’s Appalachian Regional Commission Preliminary
Project Form.
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A
ARC Preliminary Project Form
Project Name:
Applicant: County:
Contact Person:
Email Address: Phone:
Project Description:
ARC Investment Goal:
State Objective:
State Strategy
Proposed Basic Agency
(Construction Projects
Only):
Proposed Funding
Sources and Amounts:
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Program (MALPP) 60/40 Match for FY
2020
PRESENTATION DATE: November 5, 2019
PRESENTATION BY: Chris Boggs, Land Preservation Planner, Department of Planning and
Zoning
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve a $325,000 commitment from the County
Agricultural Transfer Tax to the 60/40 match component of the MALPP easement program for
FY 2020 Cycle.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: Each year MALPP asks counties if they want to obligate funds to the
60/40 match portion of the Land Preservation Easement Program. Land Preservation staff is
recommending that Washington County designate $325,000 as its 40% local match in order to
receive the 60% State match of $487,500.
The commitment requested today will result in total funding of about $1,612,500 for easement
purchases in FY 20 (including approximately $800,000 of general allotment funds that all
counties receive). Agricultural Transfer Taxes collected each year are restricted for use in
preservation programs and are not General Fund dollars.
DISCUSSION: For clarity sake, State funding contributions to the Ag Preservation Program
result from the following distributions. The entire MALPP fund is divided in half. One half is
divided equally among all Maryland counties which will result in an FY 2020 “General
Allotment” of approximately $800,000 for each County. The remaining half is divided among
only those Counties that make local commitments to the 60/40 matching program and is used for
the State’s 60% contribution. The County may add General Funds dollars to its 40% match
which would result in additional matching funds from the State and an increase in the total
amount available for easement purchases.
FISCAL IMPACT: This 60/40 match commitment and General Allotment money results in
funds for land preservation easement purchases on 4 farms. There are no General Funds
involved.
CONCURRENCES: The Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Board has endorsed the use
of the above funding source for the 60/40 match.
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
ALTERNATIVES: Make no commitment to the matching program; or commit further funding
to the 60/40 match through the use of County General Funds.
ATTACHMENTS: N/A
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: KB Farm Properties, LLC Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) Easement
proposal
PRESENTATION DATE: November 12, 2019
PRESENTATION BY: Chris Boggs, Land Preservation Planner, Department of Planning & Zoning
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the KB Farm Properties, LLC CREP easement
project, paid for 100% by the State, in the amount of $57,700.80 for 20.00 easement acres, to adopt an
ordinance approving the purchase of the easement, and to authorize the execution of the necessary
documentation to finalize the easement purchase.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The KB Farm Properties, LLC property is located at 12633 Unger Road,
Smithsburg, and will protect 2.72 acres of woodland serving as stream buffers and 17.28 acres of
pastureland and hayland. This easement will serve to buffer roughly 1,900 feet of Grove Creek. The farm
is located in the Priority Preservation Area (PPA), and lies along historic Unger Road.
Washington County has been funded to purchase CREP easements on over 1,100 acres of land since
2010. The KB Farm Properties, LLC easement will serve to both protect Maryland waterways, as well as
preserve the agricultural, historic, cultural and natural characteristics of the land.
DISCUSSION: For FY 2020, the State of Maryland is awarding CREP grants to eligible properties on
a project by project basis. Following County approval, the application will be submitted for State funding
approval.
FISCAL IMPACT: CREP funds are 100% State dollars. In addition to the easement funds, the County
receives up to 3% of the easement value for administrative costs, a mandatory 1.5% for compliance costs
and funds to cover all legal costs and surveys.
CONCURRENCES: DNR staff approves and supports our program. A final money allocation will be
approved by the State Board of Public Works.
ALTERNATIVES: If Washington County rejects these State funds for CREP, the funds will be
allocated to other counties in Maryland.
ATTACHMENTS: Aerial Map, Location Map, Detail Map, Ordinance
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: Aerial Map
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
Created By: Department of Planning and Zoning GISS:
WARNING!: This map was created for illustration purposes only. It should not be scaled or copied. Sources of the data contained hereon are from various public agencies which may have use restrictions and disclaimers.
UNGERRD
RO
W
E
R
D
LEIT
ERS
BUR
G
SMI
THSBU
R
GRD
OLD
F
O
R
G
E
R
D
ST
I
L
L
M
E
A
D
O
W
R
D
IT
N
Y
R
E
R
D
MD iMAP, DoIT
KB Farm Properties LLC - 20 +/- Acres
12551 Itnyre Road
Smithsburg, MD 21783
KB Farms Property
CREP Easement Area
CREP Matching Area
Streams
Lakes and Ponds
Town Boundaries
Town Growth Area
¹
KB Farm Properties LLC CREP - Aerial
Created By: Department of Planning and Zoning GISS:
WARNING!: This map was created for illustration purposes only. It should not be scaled or copied. Sources of the data contained hereon are from various public agencies which may have use restrictions and disclaimers.
SMIT
H
SBURGPIKE
NMAIN
ST
GEISER W
A
Y
E WA
T
ERST
ITN
Y
RE
R
D
LI
T
T
LE
A
NTI
ETA
M
R
D
UNGER R
D
AM
ANDA D
R
RO
W
E
R
D
BRAD
BURY
AV
E
BYRON D
R
OLD FORGE RD
DURBERRY RD
CA
VE HI
L
L
R
D
STEVENSON RD
LEITERSBURG SMITHSBU
RGRD
BIK
L
E
R
D
HA
M
A
K
E
R
L
N
COOPERLN
BEC
K
R
D
Greensburg
KB Farm Properties LLC - 20 +/- Acres
12551 Itnyre Road
Smithsburg, MD 21783
KB Farms Property
Preserved Lands
Agricultural Districts
Rural Villages
Town Boundaries
Town Growth Area
¹
KB Farm Properties LLC CREP - Location
SmithsburgSmithsburg
Created By: Department of Planning and Zoning GISS:
WARNING!: This map was created for illustration purposes only. It should not be scaled or copied. Sources of the data contained hereon are from various public agencies which may have use restrictions and disclaimers.
UNGER
RD
MD iMAP, DoIT
KB Farm Properties LLC - 20 +/-
Acres
12551 Itnyre Road
Smithsburg, MD 21783
RoadsRoads
KB Farms PropertyKB Farms Property
CREP Easement AreaCREP Easement Area
CREP Matching AreaCREP Matching Area
StreamsStreams
¹
KB Farm Properties LLC CREP - Aerial Detail
1 OF 3
ORDINANCE NO. ORD-2019-___
AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF A CONSERVATION
EASEMENT UNDER THE MARYLAND CONSERVATION RESERVE
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM (CREP)
(Re: KB Farm Properties, LLC CREP Easement)
RECITALS
1. The Maryland Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program ("CREP") is a federal-
State natural resources conservation program that addresses state and nationally significant
agricultural related environmental concerns related to agriculture.
2. CREP provides financial incentives to program participants to voluntarily remove
cropland and marginal pastureland from agricultural production in order to improve, protect,
and enhance water quality in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and replacing it with the best
management practices including establishment of riparian buffers, grass plantings, forbs, shrubs
and trees, stabilization of highly erodible soils, habitat restoration for plant and animal species,
and restoration of wetlands.
3. Protection is provided through the acquisition of easements and fee estates from
willing landowners currently holding a fifteen (15) year CREP contract and the supporting
activities of CREP Sponsors and local governments.
4. For FY2020, the State of Maryland (“State”) is awarding CREP grants to eligible
Counties (the "CREP Funds").
5. KB Farm Properties, LLC is the owner of real property consisting of 20.00 acres,
more or less, (the "Property") in Washington County, Maryland. The Property is more
particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto.
6. The County has agreed to pay the approximate sum of FIFTY-SEVEN
THOUSAND, SEVEN HUNDRED DOLLARS AND EIGHTY CENTS ($57,700.80), which is a
portion of the CREP Funds, to the Property Owner for a Deed of Conservation Easement on the
Property (the "KB Farm Properties, LLC CREP Easement").
2 OF 3
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Washington
County, Maryland that the purchase of the KB Farm Properties, LLC CREP Easement is approved
and that the President of the Board and the County Clerk be and are hereby authorized and
directed to execute and attest, respectively, all such documents for and on behalf of the County
relating to the purchase of the KB Farm Properties, LLC CREP Easement.
ADOPTED this 29th day of October, 2019.
ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND
__________________________ BY:
Krista L. Hart, Clerk Jeffrey A. Cline, President
Approved as to legal sufficiency:
Mail to:
_____________________________ Office of the County Attorney
Kirk C. Downey 100 W. Washington Street, Suite 1101
County Attorney Hagerstown, MD 21740
3 OF 3
EXHIBIT A--DESCRIPTION OF EASEMENT AREA
ALL those lots or parcels of land, and all the rights, ways, privileges and appurtenances
thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining, situate in Election District No. 7, Washington
County, Maryland, being part of the property identified by the State Department of Assessments
and Taxation as tax account no. 07-016603, and being shown and designated as CREP
EASEMENT AREAS on the Plat(s) to be created and recorded among the Plat Records of
Washington County, Maryland.
BEING part of the property which was conveyed from Nathan H. Weber and Jane M.
Weber, his wife, to KB Farm Properties, LLC, a Maryland limited liability company, by Deed
dated April 1, 2003 and recorded in Liber 1969, Folio 686 among the Land Records of Washington
County, Maryland.
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Battery Storage Projects – Payment in Lieu of Taxes Agreements (PILOTs)
PRESENTATION DATE: November 12, 2019
PRESENTATION BY: Stephen Wiley, Innolith Snook LLC
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Motion to authorize the execution of the proposed PILOT
agreements.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: This presentation is follow-up to the prior presentation on September 10,
2019. In 2016 the Board of County Commissioners approved PILOT agreements for three utility
scale battery storage projects proposed in cooperation with the Hagerstown Light Department,
one project by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) and the other two with Alevo USA.
Customized Energy Solutions, Ltd., provided consulting and operations support. Only the MHI
project, subsequently assigned to Alevo, was built. Alevo went bankrupt before constructing the
other two projects. Innolith Snook LLC has acquired the existing project and seeks to revive the
other two projects as well.
DISCUSSION: Since first proposed in 2016, the introduction of utility scale batteries has
progressed slowly in the U.S. and the rest of the world as regulatory and economic structures
designed without consideration of such a technology continue to be reformed. Innolith expects
that eventually the global market for utility scale batteries will become very large and thus is
willing to build projects now that have lower profit margins in order to gain experience and
refine designs in anticipation of selling many more batteries, not just in the U.S., but globally,
including places such as China and India that have under-developed electric grids or in nations
with aggressive renewable energy goals.
Therefore, given the generally slim profit margin that the projects are expected to earn,
Washington County’s 2.37% business personal property tax is significant. Additionally, given
the capital-intensive nature of these projects where the batteries and related equipment cost
millions of dollars and are all considered “business personal property (BPP),” any BPP tax is
comparatively more significant for such a project than for the average business in which only a
relatively small portion of the start-up costs is considered BPP.
Md. Code Ann., Tax-Property Article, provides authority for the County to enter into a negotiated
payment in lieu of taxes on personal property owned by Innolith in this circumstance. The Code
further provides that publicly owned property leased or otherwise made available to a person with
the privilege to use that property in connection with a business that is conducted for profit shall be
taxed as though the lessee or user of the property were the owner of the property.
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
FISCAL IMPACT: PILOT payments that would otherwise not be received and the placement
of certain property into a taxable status. No expected opportunity cost since the project locations
are either adjacent to existing electric substations owned by Hagerstown Light Department or on
property otherwise reserved for such use, and thus minimal likelihood of any other business
locating taxable assets at such locations.
CONCURRENCES: None
ALTERNATIVES: Forgo the opportunity presented by the projects and the PILOTs
ATTACHMENTS: BOCC Meeting Minutes dated June 7, 2016, and September 10, 2019 and
PowerPoint presentation
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: PowerPoint description of projects by presenters desired
EXCE RPT #1: Boa rd of County Commissioners OPE N Session Meeting M inutes dated June 7, 2016
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
WASHINGTON COUNTY
Hagerstown, Maryland
June 7, 2016
BATTERY STORAGE PROJECTS PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES
Attorney Jason Divelbiss and Bill Schofield, Vice President of Corporate Development, Customized
Energy Solutions, Inc. (CES) appeared before the County Commissioners to discuss the proposal to
bring a 2 megawatt batte1y storage project to Hagerstown in cooperation with Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries (MHI) and two additional projects totaling 10 megawatts in cooperation with Alevo
Energy. Mr. Schofield discussed the project to build battery storage centers on city-owned property
at three different electric substations and provide 12 megawatts of on-demand energy capacity.
Stored power from the project would help regulate the energy grid with increased efficiency and
decreased emissions. Instant energy would be supplied during high demand periods and energy
would be stored during lower demand times. The proposed scope of projects are:
I)4 megawatt, 30 minute duration project by Alevo located at the Hagerstown Light
Department's (HLD) Fairgrounds substation;
2)60 megawatt, 30 minute duration project by Alevo located at the HLD's Wesel
Boulevard substation; and,
3)2 megawatt, 15 minute duration project by MHI located at the HLD's Marty Snook Park
substation near the City ofHagerstown's wastewater treatment facility.
CES is requesting approval of a payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) due to the capital- intensive
projects that provide a low profit margin. The County's business personal property tax would be
waived the first three years of a ten-year lease with the City of Hagerstown, with seven discounted
yearly payments throughout the remainder of the initial lease term. The Commissioners discussed
the proposal including the fact that the projects would be built on property that cannot be
developed and will never be taxable. The City of Hagerstown previously endorsed the projects.
Commissioner Cline, seconded by Keefer, moved to authorize the execution of the proposed Payment
in Lieu of Taxes agreements with Customized Energy Solutions, Inc. as presented. The motion passed
unanimously. (4-0, Commissioner Barr was absent.)
EXCERPT #2: Board of County Commissioners OPEN Session Meeting Minutes dated September 10, 2019
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
WASHINGTON COUNTY
Hagerstown, Maryland
September 10, 2019
Hagerstown Utility Scale Battery Storage Projects
Presentation to Washington County Commissioners
October , 2019
1
Innolith –Battery Energy Storage Projects
Details of projects
•One operating demo facility at 1220 Kenly Ave, 2 proposed projects in Hagerstown
city limits.
•Each project would be situated on an HLD-owned piece of property that is very small
in size and doesn’t have any other commercial uses.
•$10 million in aggregate cost.
•HLD would receive an estimated $350k in annual electricity revenue; mitigates cost of
electricity service for all other HLD customers.
•2MW facility received PILOT agreement approval in 2016
•Projects will inject capital spending locally and hire local workers with little impact on
county resources.
Request
Washington County to consider and approve PILOT agreements for the Snook operating
facility and the 2 new projects.
2
Battery Storage Project Features vs Solar/Wind Project
Energy Storage
➢Very small footprint
➢Equipment cost per MW high
➢Storage can provide many more applications like
energy and regional transmission stability
➢Innolith technology is cutting edge
▪Very early stage of maturation
▪Like all technologies, technology needs time to
mature
▪Technology maturity will result in cost decrease
▪Receives no federal tax subsidies as stand-alone
facility
➢Project economics sensitive to tax burden
3
PV Solar
➢Requires much more land per unit of output
➢Equipment cost per MW much less expensive
➢Solar applications are limited to energy and cannot
provide other electrical grid requirements.
➢Solar technology is much more mature
▪Because of its relative maturity, cost of solar
equipment has dropped significantly over time
▪Solar technology receives federal tax subsidies
High Personal Property Tax Burden Will Jeopardize Viability of ESS Facilities
Innolith Tax Abatement Proposal Assumptions
4
Original Equipment Cost 8,500,000.00$
County BBP Tax Rate 2.370%
Standard Depreciation Rate 10%
Category F Depreciation Rate Per Year 50%
Minimum Assessment Value (25% of Original Cost)2,125,000.00$
Inputs
5
Innolith Tax Abatement Proposal
Year
Assessment Value
Using Standard
Depreciation Rate
(10%)
County Tax Liability
with No PILOT
1 7,650,000$ 181,305$
2 6,800,000$ 161,160$
3 5,950,000$ 141,015$
4 5,100,000$ 120,870$
5 4,250,000$ 100,725$
6 3,400,000$ 80,580$
7 2,550,000$ 60,435$
8 2,125,000$ 50,363$
9 2,125,000$ 50,363$
10 2,125,000$ 50,363$
TOTAL 997,177.50$
Assessment Value
Using Category F
Depreciation Rate
(50%)
County Tax
Liability Using
Category F
Depreciation Rate
Innolith
Proposed
Payment for 2
New Facilities
Payments
Snook
Payment Per
PILOT
Agreement
800,000$ 18,960$ 50,000$ -$
400,000$ 9,480$ 50,000$ 6,700$
400,000$ 9,480$ 50,000$ 6,700$
400,000$ 9,480$ 50,000$ 6,700$
400,000$ 9,480$ 50,000$ 6,700$
400,000$ 9,480$ 60,000$ 6,700$
400,000$ 9,480$ 60,000$ 6,700$
400,000$ 9,480$ 60,000$ 6,700$
400,000$ 9,480$ 60,000$
400,000$ 9,480$ 60,000$
104,280$ 550,000$ 46,900$
Thank you for your attention and look forward to your questions
6
Appendix
7
Benefits of Three Facilities During Construction and Operation
Hagerstown Light Department
•Lease payments
•$7800/mo beginning first month
of construction through
operations
•HLD electrical service revenues
estimated at $450,000 annually
•HLD currently receives
approximately $2100/mo in rent
and option payments and
typically $4500-$5000/mo in net
energy sales.
•Potential for peak shaving
agreement with HLD that will
reduce HLD’s power supply
costs.
8
Construction Period
•114 jobs projected to be created
•Jobs in electrical and civil among
other services required
•Over $100,000 expected to be
spent on local services such as
hotels, restaurants, rentals,
tooling, etc.
•Additional local suppliers will be
needed for concrete, fence, and
landscaping
Operations
•Ongoing annual services
estimated at approximately
$175,000 per year
•Services include communications,
warehouse personnel, hotels and
restaurants, supplies, and
electrical services.
•Warehouse has been leased in
Williamsport and will be used for
repairs on system. As a result it is
expected Innolith will either
contract or hire personnel from
local area to perform work.
9
Fairgrounds 3D
Memorial ESS
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Hagerstown Urban Improvement Project-Capital Bond Bill Grant Application Submission
PRESENTATION DATE: November 12, 2019
PRESENTATION BY: Susan Buchanan, Director, Office of Grant Management
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the submission of the FY20 Maryland Capital Bond Bill
application and accept awarded funds and approve execution of grant documents upon receipt from the
Maryland Department of General Services.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: In 2017, Governor Hogan authorized five years of Capital Bond Bill funding totaling
$7.5 million for the Urban Improvement Project. The County has received the application packet for the third
year of funding in the amount of $500,000. Once the application is submitted the State will provide a grant
agreement to the County for review and execution.
DISCUSSION: The Department of General Services (DGS) has provided the County with the application for
the third year of Capital Bond Bill funding for the Hagerstown Urban Improvement Project. The amount of
funding allocated in FY20 is $500,000. The total amount of funding authorized over 5 years is as follows:
The funding will be used to reimburse costs associated with the Urban Improvement Project including the
Maryland Theatre Expansion, Barbara Ingram School Expansion and proposed multi-use Plaza. Once the
application is submitted to the Department of General Services, a grant agreement for the funding will be sent to
the County for execution.
FISCAL IMPACT: The grant will provide $500,000 for costs associated with the Urban Improvement Project.
CONCURRENCES: N/A
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: N/A
AUDIO/VISUAL TO BE USED: N/A
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Washington County Public Service Academy-Capital Bond Bill Grant Application Submission
PRESENTATION DATE: November 12, 2019
PRESENTATION BY: Scott Hobbs, Director, Division of Engineering, Susan Buchanan, Director, Office of
Grant Management
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the submission of the FY20 Maryland Capital Bond Bill
application for the Washington County Public Service Academy and accept awarded funds and approve
execution of grant documents upon receipt from the Maryland Department of General Services.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: In 2019, Governor Hogan authorized a Capital Bond Bill enacted by the General
Assembly to provide $500,000 for the Washington County Public Service Academy. The County has received
the application packet for the Capital Bond Bill grant. Once the application is submitted, the State will provide
a grant agreement for the County to review and execute.
DISCUSSION: The Department of General Services (DGS) has provided the County with the application for
the Capital Bond Bill funding for the Washington County Public Service Academy. The amount of funding
allocated in FY20 is $500,000. The funding can be used for the acquisition, planning, design, construction, site
improvement, and capital equipping of the new Washington County Public Service Academy
The facility will provide a centralized and easily accessible training location for a large number of police, fire,
correctional, and other emergency services personnel serving in and around Washington County, as well as
providing training to people planning to enter those fields. The total projected budget for the project is
$11,500,000.
Once the application is submitted to the Department of General Services, a grant agreement for the funding will
be sent to the County for execution.
FISCAL IMPACT: The grant will provide $500,000 for costs associated with the Washington County Public
Service Academy
CONCURRENCES: N/A
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: N/A
AUDIO/VISUAL TO BE USED: N/A
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Construction Bid Award – Professional Boulevard Bridge
PRESENTATION DATE: November 12, 2019
PRESENTATION BY: Scott Hobbs, Director, Division of Engineering
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to award the Professional Boulevard Bridge contract to
the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, Kinsley Construction, Inc. of Hagerstown, in the amount
of $8,963,695. and execute a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for infrastructure
responsibilities relating to the proposed annexation.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The project was advertised in the Herald Mail, on the County’s website,
and on the State of Maryland’s website, “e-Maryland Marketplace Advantage (eMMA).” Eight
(8) bids were received and opened on Wednesday, October 30, 2019, as listed below and further
detailed on the attached Bid Tabulation.
Contractor: Bid:
Kinsley Construction, Inc. $ 8,963,695.00
C.William Hetzer, Inc.$ 9,210,784.65
Charles J. Merlo, Inc.$ 9,245,975.00
Milani Construction $ 9,393,091.50
Concrete General $ 9,654,055.40
Triton Construction Inc.$ 9,872,966.79
Rustler Construction Inc.$10,131,948.25
Corman Kokosing $10,284,390.50
The bids have been evaluated and the low bid is in order. The engineer’s estimate for this work is
$9,200,000.
DISCUSSION: The Professional Boulevard Bridge / Phase I project involves construction of a
four-lane bridge over Antietam Creek and grading in Phase II. The bridge will provide a connection
between Washington County and the City of Hagerstown near Eastern Boulevard. The project
benefits include reducing congestion and emergency response times, improving economic
development opportunities, and enhancing the transportation network. The project is a 550
consecutive calendar day contract with an anticipated Notice to Proceed in January 2020, and
completion date in the summer 2021. Bid documents include liquidated damages in the amount
of $500.00 per calendar day for work beyond the completion date. Attached is a MOA for
infrastructure responsibilities relating to the proposed annexation including future bridge and road
construction/maintenance.
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
FISCAL IMPACT: This is a budgeted Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Project. Funds are
available from Professional Boulevard Bridge/Phase I (RDI055) and Professional Boulevard Phase
II (RDI056) accounts.
CONCURRENCES: Budget and Finance (Fiscal Impact), County Attorney
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: Aerial Map, Bid Tabulation, MOA
AUDIO/VISUAL TO BE USED: Yes (Aerial Map)
Professional Boulevard Corridor
Hagerstown CommunityCollege (HCC)
RobinwoodMedical Center
MeritusMedical CenterRuth Ann MonroePrimary School
EasternElementary School
ANTIETAMCREEK
ANTIETAM
CREEK
TRIBUTARY
úEasternBoulevard
DualHwy(ALT40)
RobinwoodDrive
Professional Boulevard Bridge: Phase I
Professional Boulevard: Future Phase III
Yale Drive Extended Construction Complete
Professional Boulevard: Phase I (Rough Road Grading)
Legend
0 375 750 1,125 1,500Feet
µ- Project Vicinity Map
YALEDRIVEEXTENDED
YALEDRIVEEXTENDED
PROFESSIONALBOULEVARD
Parcel Boundaries
Professional Boulevard Phase II
Professional Boulevard Phase I
Professional Boulevard: Future Phase IV
Professional Boulevard: City Portion Add Alternate
Professional Boulevard: Phase II (Final Roadwork)
Professional Boulevard Phase III
Professional Boulevard City of HagerstownProfessional Boulevard Phase IV
WASHINGTON COUNTY DIVISION OF ENGINEERING
BID TABULATION
PROFESSIONAL BOULEVARD BRIDGE W5001 OVER ANTIETAM CREEK & ROAD GRADING STA 21+23 TO STA 52+63
Bid Opening: OCTOBER 30, 2019 at 2:00 PM
Contract No. RD-PB-244-10
Item No.Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price
1001 Clearing and Grubbing LS 1 $46,090.00 $46,090.00 $270,020.00 $270,020.00 $28,671.00 $28,671.00 $57,500.00 $57,500.00 $46,000.00 $46,000.00 $286,211.89 $286,211.89 $245,000.00 $245,000.00 $200,000.00 $200,000.00
1002 Type B Engineers Office LS 1 $40,890.00 $40,890.00 $41,470.00 $41,470.00 $54,966.00 $54,966.00 $80,000.00 $80,000.00 $65,000.00 $65,000.00 $35,000.00 $35,000.00 $47,000.00 $47,000.00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00
1003 Maintenance of Traffic LS 1 $19,470.00 $19,470.00 $10,880.00 $10,880.00 $18,731.00 $18,731.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $22,000.00 $22,000.00 $121,000.00 $121,000.00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00
1004 Temporary Traffic Signs SF 150 $34.00 $5,100.00 $25.00 $3,750.00 $21.00 $3,150.00 $20.00 $3,000.00 $20.00 $3,000.00 $20.00 $3,000.00 $25.00 $3,750.00 $40.00 $6,000.00
1005 Drums for Maintenance of Traffic EA 50 $90.00 $4,500.00 $56.00 $2,800.00 $75.00 $3,750.00 $25.00 $1,250.00 $30.00 $1,500.00 $142.00 $7,100.00 $100.00 $5,000.00 $100.00 $5,000.00
1006 Type III Barricade for Maintenance of Traffic EA 4 $348.00 $1,392.00 $280.00 $1,120.00 $226.00 $904.00 $200.00 $800.00 $330.00 $1,320.00 $190.00 $760.00 $350.00 $1,400.00 $500.00 $2,000.00
1007 Temporary Orange Construction Fence LF 400 $3.00 $1,200.00 $3.05 $1,220.00 $3.00 $1,200.00 $4.00 $1,600.00 $6.00 $2,400.00 $5.00 $2,000.00 $3.00 $1,200.00 $6.00 $2,400.00
1008 Crusher Run Aggregate CR-6 for MOT TON 10 $29.00 $290.00 $75.00 $750.00 $97.00 $970.00 $75.00 $750.00 $96.20 $962.00 $48.68 $486.80 $65.00 $650.00 $60.00 $600.00
1009 Hot Mix Asphalt for MOT TON 20 $231.00 $4,620.00 $285.00 $5,700.00 $156.00 $3,120.00 $150.00 $3,000.00 $200.00 $4,000.00 $200.00 $4,000.00 $200.00 $4,000.00 $160.00 $3,200.00
1010 Construction Stakeout LS 1 $52,625.00 $52,625.00 $41,850.00 $41,850.00 $109,759.00 $109,759.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $58,000.00 $58,000.00 $70,000.00 $70,000.00 $58,000.00 $58,000.00 $350,000.00 $350,000.00
1011 Mobilization LS 1 $514,000.00 $514,000.00 $760,540.00 $760,540.00 $171,177.00 $171,177.00 $900,000.00 $900,000.00 $796,000.00 $796,000.00 $987,300.00 $987,300.00 $519,500.00 $519,500.00 $900,000.00 $900,000.00
1012 Critical Path Method Project Schedule LS 1 $5,900.00 $5,900.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $8,688.00 $8,688.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00
1013 As-Built Drawings LS 1 $6,320.00 $6,320.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $12,986.00 $12,986.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $27,500.00 $27,500.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
2001 Class I Excavation CY 29000 $18.32 $531,280.00 $23.50 $681,500.00 $9.00 $261,000.00 $26.50 $768,500.00 $7.60 $220,400.00 $18.00 $522,000.00 $20.00 $580,000.00 $18.00 $522,000.00
2002 Contingent: Class 1-A Excavation CY 6000 $15.35 $92,100.00 $0.10 $600.00 $13.00 $78,000.00 $9.50 $57,000.00 $32.50 $195,000.00 $18.00 $108,000.00 $22.00 $132,000.00 $39.00 $234,000.00
2003 Contingent: Common Borrow CY 13100 $23.95 $313,745.00 $0.10 $1,310.00 $24.75 $324,225.00 $15.00 $196,500.00 $5.00 $65,500.00 $10.00 $131,000.00 $20.00 $262,000.00 $16.00 $209,600.00
2004 Contingent: Test Pit Excavation CY 60 $138.00 $8,280.00 $5.00 $300.00 $89.00 $5,340.00 $125.00 $7,500.00 $200.00 $12,000.00 $70.00 $4,200.00 $20.00 $1,200.00 $50.00 $3,000.00
2005 Existing Pavement Removal CY 240 $33.00 $7,920.00 $18.75 $4,500.00 $15.00 $3,600.00 $40.00 $9,600.00 $24.00 $5,760.00 $7.00 $1,680.00 $60.00 $14,400.00 $50.00 $12,000.00
2006 Contingent: Geosynthetic Stabilized Subgrade using Graded CY 5000 $32.00 $160,000.00 $0.10 $500.00 $44.00 $220,000.00 $19.00 $95,000.00 $43.50 $217,500.00 $45.00 $225,000.00 $35.00 $175,000.00 $35.00 $175,000.00
2007 Existing Curb & Gutter Removal LF 180 $8.60 $1,548.00 $4.60 $828.00 $12.00 $2,160.00 $3.00 $540.00 $10.00 $1,800.00 $5.00 $900.00 $12.00 $2,160.00 $8.00 $1,440.00
2008 Contingent: Undercut and Backfill using Mix 1 Concrete CY 875 $192.00 $168,000.00 $230.00 $201,250.00 $173.00 $151,375.00 $90.00 $78,750.00 $250.00 $218,750.00 $185.00 $161,875.00 $280.00 $245,000.00 $120.00 $105,000.00
2009 Contingent: Undercut and Backfill using CR-6 CY 1300 $59.20 $76,960.00 $82.00 $106,600.00 $55.00 $71,500.00 $26.00 $33,800.00 $114.00 $148,200.00 $51.00 $66,300.00 $62.00 $80,600.00 $45.00 $58,500.00
3001 Contingent: Select Backfill CY 500 $35.00 $17,500.00 $24.50 $12,250.00 $48.00 $24,000.00 $17.00 $8,500.00 $56.00 $28,000.00 $45.00 $22,500.00 $29.00 $14,500.00 $35.00 $17,500.00
3002 4 Inch Sub-Drain Pipe LF 73 $26.00 $1,898.00 $48.50 $3,540.50 $27.00 $1,971.00 $65.00 $4,745.00 $30.00 $2,190.00 $18.00 $1,314.00 $22.00 $1,606.00 $80.00 $5,840.00
3003 6 Inch Sub-Drain Pipe LF 97 $29.00 $2,813.00 $25.50 $2,473.50 $35.00 $3,395.00 $65.00 $6,305.00 $30.00 $2,910.00 $20.00 $1,940.00 $30.00 $2,910.00 $65.00 $6,305.00
3004 15 Inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe, Class IV LF 109 $75.00 $8,175.00 $74.00 $8,066.00 $118.00 $12,862.00 $60.00 $6,540.00 $127.00 $13,843.00 $71.00 $7,739.00 $80.00 $8,720.00 $100.00 $10,900.00
3005 18 Inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe, Class IV LF 1050 $72.00 $75,600.00 $73.00 $76,650.00 $130.00 $136,500.00 $70.00 $73,500.00 $132.00 $138,600.00 $81.00 $85,050.00 $86.00 $90,300.00 $100.00 $105,000.00
3006 24 Inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe, Class IV LF 500 $100.00 $50,000.00 $88.00 $44,000.00 $177.00 $88,500.00 $85.00 $42,500.00 $146.00 $73,000.00 $104.00 $52,000.00 $112.00 $56,000.00 $125.00 $62,500.00
3007 54 Inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe, Class IV LF 351 $271.00 $95,121.00 $275.00 $96,525.00 $343.00 $120,393.00 $250.00 $87,750.00 $405.00 $142,155.00 $308.00 $108,108.00 $275.00 $96,525.00 $325.00 $114,075.00
3008 32 Inch x 49 Inch Horizontal Elliptical RCP, Class HE IV LF 230 $246.00 $56,580.00 $225.00 $51,750.00 $316.00 $72,680.00 $220.00 $50,600.00 $351.00 $80,730.00 $282.00 $64,860.00 $220.00 $50,600.00 $180.00 $41,400.00
3009 43 Inch x 68 Inch Horizontal Elliptical RCP, Class HE IV LF 321 $414.00 $132,894.00 $400.00 $128,400.00 $389.00 $124,869.00 $350.00 $112,350.00 $470.00 $150,870.00 $392.00 $125,832.00 $356.00 $114,276.00 $450.00 $144,450.00
3010 15 Inch Concrete End Section EA 1 $680.00 $680.00 $1,030.00 $1,030.00 $1,094.00 $1,094.00 $1,100.00 $1,100.00 $900.00 $900.00 $595.00 $595.00 $900.00 $900.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
3011 24 Inch Concrete End Section EA 1 $990.00 $990.00 $1,340.00 $1,340.00 $1,418.00 $1,418.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,250.00 $1,250.00 $927.00 $927.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00
3012 Type C Endwall for 24 Inch Pipe EA 1 $1,740.00 $1,740.00 $3,220.00 $3,220.00 $2,223.00 $2,223.00 $3,100.00 $3,100.00 $2,400.00 $2,400.00 $2,490.00 $2,490.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00
3013 Nonstandard Endwall CY 64 $1,710.00 $109,440.00 $2,160.00 $138,240.00 $1,277.00 $81,728.00 $750.00 $48,000.00 $900.00 $57,600.00 $1,370.00 $87,680.00 $1,300.00 $83,200.00 $1,500.00 $96,000.00
3014 10 FT COG Inlet - Minimum Depth EA 13 $5,110.00 $66,430.00 $6,590.00 $85,670.00 $4,495.00 $58,435.00 $6,800.00 $88,400.00 $5,100.00 $66,300.00 $4,580.00 $59,540.00 $6,200.00 $80,600.00 $7,500.00 $97,500.00
3015 20 FT COG Inlet - Minimum Depth EA 1 $7,270.00 $7,270.00 $8,460.00 $8,460.00 $6,294.00 $6,294.00 $11,000.00 $11,000.00 $6,500.00 $6,500.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $9,000.00 $9,000.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00
3016 COG Inlet - Vertical Depth LF 12 $182.00 $2,184.00 $0.10 $1.20 $378.00 $4,536.00 $500.00 $6,000.00 $300.00 $3,600.00 $600.00 $7,200.00 $300.00 $3,600.00 $125.00 $1,500.00
3017 10 FT COS Inlet - Minimum Depth EA 3 $5,320.00 $15,960.00 $6,670.00 $20,010.00 $4,495.00 $13,485.00 $6,500.00 $19,500.00 $5,000.00 $15,000.00 $4,600.00 $13,800.00 $6,500.00 $19,500.00 $7,000.00 $21,000.00
3018 COS Inlet - Vertical Depth LF 2 $182.00 $364.00 $0.10 $0.20 $378.00 $756.00 $350.00 $700.00 $300.00 $600.00 $600.00 $1,200.00 $300.00 $600.00 $100.00 $200.00
3019 Single Type K Inlet - Minimum Depth EA 3 $2,590.00 $7,770.00 $5,860.00 $17,580.00 $1,840.00 $5,520.00 $4,700.00 $14,100.00 $3,900.00 $11,700.00 $2,620.00 $7,860.00 $3,000.00 $9,000.00 $5,500.00 $16,500.00
3020 Single Type K Inlet - Vertical Depth LF 6 $261.00 $1,566.00 $0.10 $0.60 $377.00 $2,262.00 $375.00 $2,250.00 $330.00 $1,980.00 $412.00 $2,472.00 $200.00 $1,200.00 $100.00 $600.00
3021 48 Inch Diameter Manhole - Minimum Depth EA 1 $3,240.00 $3,240.00 $5,610.00 $5,610.00 $2,716.00 $2,716.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $5,600.00 $5,600.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00
3022 48 Inch Diameter Manhole - Vertical Depth LF 6 $198.00 $1,188.00 $0.10 $0.60 $362.00 $2,172.00 $345.00 $2,070.00 $300.00 $1,800.00 $530.00 $3,180.00 $120.00 $720.00 $100.00 $600.00
3023 Modified Double Type S Inlet - Minimum Depth EA 5 $3,640.00 $18,200.00 $8,290.00 $41,450.00 $3,792.00 $18,960.00 $6,500.00 $32,500.00 $7,600.00 $38,000.00 $5,100.00 $25,500.00 $4,800.00 $24,000.00 $6,000.00 $30,000.00
3024 Modified Double Type S Inlet - Vertical Depth LF 14 $315.00 $4,410.00 $0.10 $1.40 $763.00 $10,682.00 $725.00 $10,150.00 $1,000.00 $14,000.00 $910.00 $12,740.00 $250.00 $3,500.00 $100.00 $1,400.00
3025 12 FT x 4 FT Filterra with Sedimentation Chamber EA 1 $24,925.00 $24,925.00 $25,970.00 $25,970.00 $27,031.00 $27,031.00 $29,000.00 $29,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $27,000.00 $27,000.00 $32,000.00 $32,000.00 $28,000.00 $28,000.00
3026 16 FT x 4 FT Filterra with Sedimentation Chamber EA 2 $29,130.00 $58,260.00 $30,360.00 $60,720.00 $31,246.00 $62,492.00 $33,000.00 $66,000.00 $34,000.00 $68,000.00 $32,000.00 $64,000.00 $36,630.00 $73,260.00 $30,000.00 $60,000.00
3027 12 FT x 6 FT Filterra with Sedimentation Chamber EA 1 $31,370.00 $31,370.00 $32,930.00 $32,930.00 $33,962.00 $33,962.00 $34,000.00 $34,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $34,100.00 $34,100.00 $39,500.00 $39,500.00 $32,000.00 $32,000.00
3028 19 FT x 6 FT Filterra with Sedimentation Chamber EA 2 $49,400.00 $98,800.00 $45,480.00 $90,960.00 $45,508.00 $91,016.00 $65,000.00 $130,000.00 $50,000.00 $100,000.00 $46,300.00 $92,600.00 $53,235.00 $106,470.00 $42,000.00 $84,000.00
3029 20 FT x 8 FT Filterra with Sedimentation Chamber EA 2 $63,750.00 $127,500.00 $61,140.00 $122,280.00 $61,012.00 $122,024.00 $50,000.00 $100,000.00 $66,000.00 $132,000.00 $62,000.00 $124,000.00 $70,750.00 $141,500.00 $55,000.00 $110,000.00
3030 Stormwater Management Facility As-Built Certification LS 1 $4,210.00 $4,210.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $11,584.00 $11,584.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 $6,300.00 $6,300.00 $32,850.00 $32,850.00 $5,400.00 $5,400.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00
3031 Stabilized Construction Entrance EA 2 $2,630.00 $5,260.00 $1,030.00 $2,060.00 $783.00 $1,566.00 $7,500.00 $15,000.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 $1,700.00 $3,400.00 $2,800.00 $5,600.00 $6,000.00 $12,000.00
3032 Erosion & Sediment Control Original Excavation CY 290 $19.50 $5,655.00 $12.75 $3,697.50 $32.00 $9,280.00 $20.00 $5,800.00 $50.00 $14,500.00 $8.00 $2,320.00 $30.00 $8,700.00 $18.00 $5,220.00
3033 Erosion & Sediment Control Cleanout Excavation CY 29 $27.00 $783.00 $9.50 $275.50 $21.00 $609.00 $60.00 $1,740.00 $120.00 $3,480.00 $12.50 $362.50 $80.00 $2,320.00 $125.00 $3,625.00
3034 Earth Dike LF 1491 $13.00 $19,383.00 $11.75 $17,519.25 $25.00 $37,275.00 $7.00 $10,437.00 $5.00 $7,455.00 $2.00 $2,982.00 $10.00 $14,910.00 $11.00 $16,401.00
3035 Diversion Fence LF 1583 $15.00 $23,745.00 $16.00 $25,328.00 $10.00 $15,830.00 $10.00 $15,830.00 $9.40 $14,880.20 $8.40 $13,297.20 $8.50 $13,455.50 $7.00 $11,081.00
3036 Class I Riprap for Slope & Channel Protection SY 643 $48.00 $30,864.00 $39.50 $25,398.50 $39.00 $25,077.00 $75.00 $48,225.00 $68.00 $43,724.00 $83.50 $53,690.50 $66.00 $42,438.00 $65.00 $41,795.00
3037 Class I Riprap for Bridge Slope Protection SY 1675 $30.00 $50,250.00 $19.00 $31,825.00 $30.00 $50,250.00 $85.00 $142,375.00 $44.00 $73,700.00 $84.50 $141,537.50 $37.00 $61,975.00 $90.00 $150,750.00
3038 Silt Fence LF 296 $3.50 $1,036.00 $3.20 $947.20 $3.00 $888.00 $5.00 $1,480.00 $5.00 $1,480.00 $3.50 $1,036.00 $5.00 $1,480.00 $4.00 $1,184.00
3039 Super Silt Fence LF 1874 $12.50 $23,425.00 $9.40 $17,615.60 $9.00 $16,866.00 $10.00 $18,740.00 $9.30 $17,428.20 $6.70 $12,555.80 $8.50 $15,929.00 $7.00 $13,118.00
3040 Temporary Gabion Outlet Structures EA 7 $3,730.00 $26,110.00 $2,960.00 $20,720.00 $3,040.00 $21,280.00 $2,500.00 $17,500.00 $2,200.00 $15,400.00 $4,400.00 $30,800.00 $3,000.00 $21,000.00 $2,500.00 $17,500.00
3041 Inlet Protection EA 25 $315.00 $7,875.00 $365.00 $9,125.00 $319.00 $7,975.00 $350.00 $8,750.00 $305.00 $7,625.00 $240.00 $6,000.00 $330.00 $8,250.00 $375.00 $9,375.00
3042 Portable Sediment Tank EA 3 $2,840.00 $8,520.00 $1,070.00 $3,210.00 $4,614.00 $13,842.00 $1,500.00 $4,500.00 $3,700.00 $11,100.00 $4,950.00 $14,850.00 $3,500.00 $10,500.00 $5,000.00 $15,000.00
3043 Filter Bag EA 2 $1,330.00 $2,660.00 $265.00 $530.00 $440.00 $880.00 $350.00 $700.00 $4,500.00 $9,000.00 $300.00 $600.00 $800.00 $1,600.00 $125.00 $250.00
3044 Temporary Access Culvert LS 1 $71,150.00 $71,150.00 $1.00 $1.00 $97,760.00 $97,760.00 $65,000.00 $65,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $125,000.00 $125,000.00 $150,000.00 $150,000.00 $1.00 $1.00
3045 2 inch to 3 inch Stone for Sediment Control TON 220 $35.60 $7,832.00 $5.00 $1,100.00 $29.00 $6,380.00 $50.00 $11,000.00 $94.20 $20,724.00 $67.00 $14,740.00 $27.00 $5,940.00 $80.00 $17,600.00
Rustler Construction, Inc.Corman Kokosing
9209 Old Marlboro Pike 12001 Guilford Road
Upper Marlboro, MD Annapolis Junction, MD 20701
Triton Construction, Inc.
Hagerstown, MD Hagerstown, MD Mineral Point, PA 15942 Washington DC 20020 Gaithersburg, MD 20879 Saint Albans, WV 25177
14702 Crown Lane 9401 Sharpsburg Pike 234 Merlo Rd 2001 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave 8000 Beachcraft Ave PO Box 1360
Kinsley Construction, Inc.C. William Hetzer, Inc.Charles J. Merlo, Inc.Milani Construction Concrete General
Contract No. RD-PB-244-10
Item No.Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price
Rustler Construction, Inc.Corman Kokosing
9209 Old Marlboro Pike 12001 Guilford Road
Upper Marlboro, MD Annapolis Junction, MD 20701
Triton Construction, Inc.
Hagerstown, MD Hagerstown, MD Mineral Point, PA 15942 Washington DC 20020 Gaithersburg, MD 20879 Saint Albans, WV 25177
14702 Crown Lane 9401 Sharpsburg Pike 234 Merlo Rd 2001 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave 8000 Beachcraft Ave PO Box 1360
Kinsley Construction, Inc.C. William Hetzer, Inc.Charles J. Merlo, Inc.Milani Construction Concrete General
3046 Class I Riprap Ditch SY 1759 $44.00 $77,396.00 $22.75 $40,017.25 $35.00 $61,565.00 $75.00 $131,925.00 $58.00 $102,022.00 $58.00 $102,022.00 $60.00 $105,540.00 $65.00 $114,335.00
3047 Class II Riprap Ditch SY 50 $191.00 $9,550.00 $84.00 $4,200.00 $58.00 $2,900.00 $75.00 $3,750.00 $118.00 $5,900.00 $72.00 $3,600.00 $100.00 $5,000.00 $125.00 $6,250.00
3048 Bottom Cutoff Walls for Class I Riprap LF 147 $34.00 $4,998.00 $29.00 $4,263.00 $16.00 $2,352.00 $35.00 $5,145.00 $8.00 $1,176.00 $36.00 $5,292.00 $56.00 $8,232.00 $30.00 $4,410.00
3049 Bottom Cutoff Walls for Class II Riprap LF 18 $203.00 $3,654.00 $46.50 $837.00 $15.00 $270.00 $60.00 $1,080.00 $8.00 $144.00 $40.00 $720.00 $83.00 $1,494.00 $30.00 $540.00
3050 8" Silt Sock LF 120 $2.70 $324.00 $8.10 $972.00 $17.00 $2,040.00 $12.00 $1,440.00 $19.00 $2,280.00 $4.00 $480.00 $17.00 $2,040.00 $30.00 $3,600.00
3051 Turbidity Curtain LF 105 $43.00 $4,515.00 $100.00 $10,500.00 $112.00 $11,760.00 $50.00 $5,250.00 $70.00 $7,350.00 $27.00 $2,835.00 $105.00 $11,025.00 $20.00 $2,100.00
3052 Contingent Flowable Fill CY 18 $150.00 $2,700.00 $170.00 $3,060.00 $283.00 $5,094.00 $500.00 $9,000.00 $392.00 $7,056.00 $165.00 $2,970.00 $300.00 $5,400.00 $200.00 $3,600.00
4001 Structure Excavation (Class 3)CY 1000 $38.00 $38,000.00 $5.00 $5,000.00 $18.00 $18,000.00 $70.00 $70,000.00 $45.00 $45,000.00 $1.00 $1,000.00 $75.00 $75,000.00 $30.00 $30,000.00
4002 Drilled Shafts, 42 Inch Diameter LF 193 $464.00 $89,552.00 $830.00 $160,190.00 $895.00 $172,735.00 $600.00 $115,800.00 $1,400.00 $270,200.00 $970.00 $187,210.00 $900.00 $173,700.00 $470.00 $90,710.00
4003 Rock Sockets, 36 Inch Diameter LF 178 $1,120.00 $199,360.00 $1,170.00 $208,260.00 $1,300.00 $231,400.00 $1,000.00 $178,000.00 $1,450.00 $258,100.00 $1,200.00 $213,600.00 $1,500.00 $267,000.00 $1,100.00 $195,800.00
4004 Probe Holes LF 591 $43.00 $25,413.00 $12.75 $7,535.25 $79.00 $46,689.00 $5.00 $2,955.00 $80.00 $47,280.00 $60.00 $35,460.00 $43.00 $25,413.00 $50.00 $29,550.00
4005 Integrity Testing (CSL) EA 22 $1,415.00 $31,130.00 $2,250.00 $49,500.00 $2,317.00 $50,974.00 $500.00 $11,000.00 $1,500.00 $33,000.00 $3,500.00 $77,000.00 $2,200.00 $48,400.00 $2,000.00 $44,000.00
4006 Concrete Parapet LS 1 $168,400.00 $168,400.00 $122,950.00 $122,950.00 $133,019.00 $133,019.00 $160,000.00 $160,000.00 $134,000.00 $134,000.00 $180,000.00 $180,000.00 $151,000.00 $151,000.00 $250,000.00 $250,000.00
4007 Superstructure Concrete for Bridge LS 1 $526,250.00 $526,250.00 $510,720.00 $510,720.00 $483,333.00 $483,333.00 $400,000.00 $400,000.00 $525,000.00 $525,000.00 $375,000.00 $375,000.00 $425,000.00 $425,000.00 $650,000.00 $650,000.00
4008 Substructure Concrete for Bridge LS 1 $336,800.00 $336,800.00 $456,240.00 $456,240.00 $230,145.00 $230,145.00 $300,000.00 $300,000.00 $303,000.00 $303,000.00 $400,000.00 $400,000.00 $410,000.00 $410,000.00 $641,000.00 $641,000.00
4009 Footing Concrete CY 233 $585.00 $136,305.00 $670.00 $156,110.00 $463.00 $107,879.00 $650.00 $151,450.00 $600.00 $139,800.00 $600.00 $139,800.00 $600.00 $139,800.00 $1,000.00 $233,000.00
4010 Approach Slab Concrete LS 1 $92,620.00 $92,620.00 $102,890.00 $102,890.00 $74,737.00 $74,737.00 $125,000.00 $125,000.00 $71,000.00 $71,000.00 $105,000.00 $105,000.00 $122,000.00 $122,000.00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00
4011 Moment Slab Concrete CY 219 $411.00 $90,009.00 $480.00 $105,120.00 $399.00 $87,381.00 $500.00 $109,500.00 $460.00 $100,740.00 $425.00 $93,075.00 $555.00 $121,545.00 $500.00 $109,500.00
4012 Epoxy Coated Reinforcing Steel Bars LS 1 $374,690.00 $374,690.00 $334,800.00 $334,800.00 $562,636.00 $562,636.00 $350,000.00 $350,000.00 $360,000.00 $360,000.00 $300,000.00 $300,000.00 $285,000.00 $285,000.00 $300,000.00 $300,000.00
4013 Fabricated Structural Steel LS 1 $1,463,285.00 $1,463,285.00 $1,604,500.00 $1,604,500.00 $1,821,755.00 $1,821,755.00 $1,506,000.00 $1,506,000.00 $1,656,000.00 $1,656,000.00 $1,400,000.00 $1,400,000.00 $1,612,620.00 $1,612,620.00 $1,200,000.00 $1,200,000.00
4014 Metal Railing LF 883 $81.00 $71,523.00 $62.00 $54,746.00 $80.00 $70,640.00 $70.00 $61,810.00 $76.00 $67,108.00 $70.00 $61,810.00 $66.00 $58,278.00 $65.00 $57,395.00
4015 Retaining Wall 1 LS 1 $89,465.00 $89,465.00 $150,000.00 $150,000.00 $86,144.00 $86,144.00 $330,000.00 $330,000.00 $81,000.00 $81,000.00 $180,000.00 $180,000.00 $130,000.00 $130,000.00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00
4016 Retaining Wall 2 LS 1 $103,145.00 $103,145.00 $97,740.00 $97,740.00 $98,812.00 $98,812.00 $110,000.00 $110,000.00 $98,000.00 $98,000.00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $120,000.00 $120,000.00 $75,000.00 $75,000.00
4017 Retaining Wall 3 LS 1 $223,130.00 $223,130.00 $250,000.00 $250,000.00 $196,596.00 $196,596.00 $215,000.00 $215,000.00 $212,000.00 $212,000.00 $250,000.00 $250,000.00 $264,000.00 $264,000.00 $200,000.00 $200,000.00
4018 Retaining Wall 4 LS 1 $252,600.00 $252,600.00 $251,740.00 $251,740.00 $280,637.00 $280,637.00 $220,000.00 $220,000.00 $230,000.00 $230,000.00 $275,000.00 $275,000.00 $367,000.00 $367,000.00 $225,000.00 $225,000.00
4019 Settlement Monitoring Points and Plates LS 1 $11,160.00 $11,160.00 $5,150.00 $5,150.00 $51,026.00 $51,026.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,800.00 $4,800.00 $27,000.00 $27,000.00 $28,000.00 $28,000.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00
4020 Utility Supports on Structures LS 1 $22,100.00 $22,100.00 $48,180.00 $48,180.00 $35,862.00 $35,862.00 $13,000.00 $13,000.00 $19,000.00 $19,000.00 $27,000.00 $27,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00
5001 Graded Aggregate Base - 4 Inch Depth SY 19895 $3.40 $67,643.00 $5.50 $109,422.50 $4.00 $79,580.00 $4.50 $89,527.50 $4.80 $95,496.00 $4.50 $89,527.50 $4.10 $81,569.50 $4.00 $79,580.00
5002 Graded Aggregate Base - 6 Inch Depth SY 15840 $6.00 $95,040.00 $7.40 $117,216.00 $8.00 $126,720.00 $6.30 $99,792.00 $7.00 $110,880.00 $6.50 $102,960.00 $6.65 $105,336.00 $5.50 $87,120.00
5003 Hot Mix Asphalt Superpave Surface 12.5mm PG70-22 TON 260 $93.00 $24,180.00 $94.00 $24,440.00 $120.00 $31,200.00 $75.00 $19,500.00 $95.00 $24,700.00 $70.00 $18,200.00 $77.00 $20,020.00 $70.00 $18,200.00
5004 Hot Mix Asphalt Superpave Base 19mm PG64S-22, Level 2 TON 650 $74.00 $48,100.00 $67.00 $43,550.00 $91.00 $59,150.00 $75.00 $48,750.00 $90.00 $58,500.00 $72.00 $46,800.00 $79.00 $51,350.00 $72.00 $46,800.00
5005 Price Adjustment for Asphalt Binder EA 10000 $1.00 $10,000.00 $1.00 $10,000.00 $1.00 $10,000.00 $1.00 $10,000.00 $1.00 $10,000.00 $1.00 $10,000.00 $1.00 $10,000.00 $1.00 $10,000.00
5006 Grinding Asphalt Pavement 1 Inch to 2 Inch SY 410 $13.60 $5,576.00 $8.10 $3,321.00 $12.00 $4,920.00 $14.00 $5,740.00 $13.00 $5,330.00 $12.00 $4,920.00 $13.00 $5,330.00 $6.00 $2,460.00
5007 8 Inch Portland Cement Concrete Pavement for Driveway, Mix 9 SY 175 $113.00 $19,775.00 $120.00 $21,000.00 $110.00 $19,250.00 $130.00 $22,750.00 $105.00 $18,375.00 $100.00 $17,500.00 $140.00 $24,500.00 $40.00 $7,000.00
5008 Full Depth Saw Cuts LF 300 $2.10 $630.00 $2.55 $765.00 $6.00 $1,800.00 $5.00 $1,500.00 $3.00 $900.00 $3.45 $1,035.00 $14.00 $4,200.00 $3.00 $900.00
6001 Type A Combination Curb & Gutter LF 890 $24.00 $21,360.00 $24.25 $21,582.50 $87.00 $77,430.00 $20.00 $17,800.00 $35.00 $31,150.00 $49.00 $43,610.00 $40.00 $35,600.00 $25.00 $22,250.00
6002 Type C Combination Curb & Gutter LF 110 $25.00 $2,750.00 $36.50 $4,015.00 $87.00 $9,570.00 $20.00 $2,200.00 $35.00 $3,850.00 $62.00 $6,820.00 $55.00 $6,050.00 $25.00 $2,750.00
6003 4 Inch Concrete Sidewalk SF 3910 $6.10 $23,851.00 $6.90 $26,979.00 $8.00 $31,280.00 $10.00 $39,100.00 $10.00 $39,100.00 $8.00 $31,280.00 $8.00 $31,280.00 $7.00 $27,370.00
6004 6 Foot Chain Link Fence LF 200 $40.00 $8,000.00 $34.00 $6,800.00 $58.00 $11,600.00 $40.00 $8,000.00 $44.00 $8,800.00 $50.00 $10,000.00 $39.00 $7,800.00 $40.00 $8,000.00
6005 Pedestrian Barrier LF 1050 $310.00 $325,500.00 $295.00 $309,750.00 $375.00 $393,750.00 $275.00 $288,750.00 $402.00 $422,100.00 $325.00 $341,250.00 $287.00 $301,350.00 $300.00 $315,000.00
6006 Pedestrian Barrier Spare Panels LF 32 $211.00 $6,752.00 $330.00 $10,560.00 $189.00 $6,048.00 $220.00 $7,040.00 $240.00 $7,680.00 $160.00 $5,120.00 $210.00 $6,720.00 $250.00 $8,000.00
6007 Wire Pilaster with Stone Cap and Fill EA 4 $2,320.00 $9,280.00 $7,300.00 $29,200.00 $3,303.00 $13,212.00 $3,300.00 $13,200.00 $2,100.00 $8,400.00 $3,000.00 $12,000.00 $7,000.00 $28,000.00 $5,000.00 $20,000.00
6008 Landscape Forms 'Stay Bench'EA 4 $2,250.00 $9,000.00 $2,340.00 $9,360.00 $2,917.00 $11,668.00 $2,500.00 $10,000.00 $1,100.00 $4,400.00 $2,600.00 $10,400.00 $2,800.00 $11,200.00 $2,500.00 $10,000.00
7001 Placing Salvaged Topsoil, 4 Inch Depth SY 16430 $1.70 $27,931.00 $3.95 $64,898.50 $4.00 $65,720.00 $3.00 $49,290.00 $1.50 $24,645.00 $3.50 $57,505.00 $2.70 $44,361.00 $2.50 $41,075.00
7002 Contingent: Placing Furnished Topsoil, 4 Inch Depth SY 1000 $9.60 $9,600.00 $5.00 $5,000.00 $9.00 $9,000.00 $6.50 $6,500.00 $12.50 $12,500.00 $9.00 $9,000.00 $12.00 $12,000.00 $6.00 $6,000.00
7003 Temporary Seeding SY 9300 $0.04 $372.00 $0.25 $2,325.00 $0.85 $7,905.00 $2.00 $18,600.00 $1.10 $10,230.00 $0.90 $8,370.00 $0.50 $4,650.00 $0.60 $5,580.00
7004 Temporary Mulch SY 9300 $0.23 $2,139.00 $0.25 $2,325.00 $0.75 $6,975.00 $2.00 $18,600.00 $1.10 $10,230.00 $0.90 $8,370.00 $0.50 $4,650.00 $0.90 $8,370.00
7005 Turfgrass Establishment SY 15130 $3.10 $46,903.00 $0.80 $12,104.00 $1.00 $15,130.00 $1.00 $15,130.00 $1.30 $19,669.00 $1.00 $15,130.00 $0.90 $13,617.00 $0.70 $10,591.00
7006 Temporary Turfgrass Establishment SY 12270 $1.90 $23,313.00 $0.45 $5,521.50 $1.00 $12,270.00 $2.00 $24,540.00 $1.30 $15,951.00 $1.00 $12,270.00 $1.20 $14,724.00 $0.90 $11,043.00
7007 Turfgrass Sod Establishment SY 1300 $10.05 $13,065.00 $6.80 $8,840.00 $12.00 $15,600.00 $7.00 $9,100.00 $7.00 $9,100.00 $10.00 $13,000.00 $9.00 $11,700.00 $6.50 $8,450.00
7008 Type A Soil Stabilization Matting SY 3050 $1.50 $4,575.00 $1.35 $4,117.50 $4.00 $12,200.00 $4.00 $12,200.00 $4.00 $12,200.00 $3.75 $11,437.50 $3.00 $9,150.00 $4.00 $12,200.00
7009 Type B Soil Stabilization Matting SY 164 $6.00 $984.00 $7.90 $1,295.60 $7.00 $1,148.00 $10.00 $1,640.00 $12.25 $2,009.00 $10.00 $1,640.00 $10.00 $1,640.00 $10.00 $1,640.00
7010 Contingent: Specimen Tree Felling outside LOD per LTE direction EA 5 $1,200.00 $6,000.00 $3,680.00 $18,400.00 $1,158.00 $5,790.00 $2,100.00 $10,500.00 $470.00 $2,350.00 $1,200.00 $6,000.00 $100.00 $500.00 $1,500.00 $7,500.00
7011 Contingent: Tree Root Pruning LF 3321 $4.00 $13,284.00 $0.10 $332.10 $12.00 $39,852.00 $6.00 $19,926.00 $4.00 $13,284.00 $10.00 $33,210.00 $6.30 $20,922.30 $3.50 $11,623.50
7012 Tree Protection Fencing & Signs LF 3321 $3.00 $9,963.00 $3.40 $11,291.40 $3.00 $9,963.00 $4.00 $13,284.00 $4.00 $13,284.00 $8.60 $28,560.60 $2.95 $9,796.95 $3.00 $9,963.00
7013 Permanent Forest Conservation Sign EA 2 $240.00 $480.00 $28.00 $56.00 $501.00 $1,002.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 $80.00 $160.00 $230.00 $460.00 $350.00 $700.00 $500.00 $1,000.00
8001 PVC Conduit - Trenched for Future Utilities under Pavement LF 300 $89.00 $26,700.00 $86.00 $25,800.00 $70.00 $21,000.00 $35.00 $10,500.00 $170.00 $51,000.00 $70.00 $21,000.00 $105.00 $31,500.00 $80.00 $24,000.00
8002 Barrier Embedded Junction Box - 12 Inch x 10 Inch x 8 Inch EA 15 $375.00 $5,625.00 $360.00 $5,400.00 $469.00 $7,035.00 $450.00 $6,750.00 $350.00 $5,250.00 $490.00 $7,350.00 $550.00 $8,250.00 $500.00 $7,500.00
8003 18 Inch Steel Sleeve for Future Water Crossings LF 300 $240.00 $72,000.00 $145.00 $43,500.00 $162.00 $48,600.00 $120.00 $36,000.00 $107.00 $32,100.00 $155.00 $46,500.00 $220.00 $66,000.00 $250.00 $75,000.00
8004 30 Inch Steel Sleeve for Future Water Crossings LF 110 $380.00 $41,800.00 $260.00 $28,600.00 $277.00 $30,470.00 $200.00 $22,000.00 $170.00 $18,700.00 $233.00 $25,630.00 $330.00 $36,300.00 $330.00 $36,300.00
8005 8 Inch Steel Sleeve for Future Sewer Crossings LF 610 $128.00 $78,080.00 $66.00 $40,260.00 $83.00 $50,630.00 $65.00 $39,650.00 $78.00 $47,580.00 $87.00 $53,070.00 $95.00 $57,950.00 $130.00 $79,300.00
8006 16 Inch DIP Waterline Complete LF 50 $410.00 $20,500.00 $360.00 $18,000.00 $405.00 $20,250.00 $500.00 $25,000.00 $882.00 $44,100.00 $350.00 $17,500.00 $460.00 $23,000.00 $400.00 $20,000.00
8007 Relocate Fire Hydrant EA 1 $7,850.00 $7,850.00 $3,170.00 $3,170.00 $5,213.00 $5,213.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $4,700.00 $4,700.00 $5,700.00 $5,700.00 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $9,000.00 $9,000.00
8008 Fire Hydrant Assembly EA 1 $6,600.00 $6,600.00 $5,620.00 $5,620.00 $11,005.00 $11,005.00 $9,000.00 $9,000.00 $9,000.00 $9,000.00 $5,900.00 $5,900.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 $7,000.00 $7,000.00
8009 Adjustment of Existing Water Valve Elevation EA 1 $290.00 $290.00 $380.00 $380.00 $348.00 $348.00 $300.00 $300.00 $500.00 $500.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $400.00 $400.00 $800.00 $800.00
8010 (4) 4 Inch Schedule 40 Rigid PVC Conduit - Bridge Attached LF 310 $26.50 $8,215.00 $0.10 $31.00 $58.00 $17,980.00 $40.00 $12,400.00 $49.00 $15,190.00 $36.00 $11,160.00 $35.00 $10,850.00 $100.00 $31,000.00
8011 (2) 8 Inch Schedule 40 Rigid PVC Conduit - Bridge Attached LF 310 $17.90 $5,549.00 $0.10 $31.00 $61.00 $18,910.00 $40.00 $12,400.00 $34.00 $10,540.00 $39.00 $12,090.00 $45.00 $13,950.00 $85.00 $26,350.00
8012 (4) 4 Inch Schedule 40 Rigid PVC Conduit - Trenched LF 190 $86.00 $16,340.00 $69.00 $13,110.00 $31.00 $5,890.00 $40.00 $7,600.00 $256.00 $48,640.00 $31.00 $5,890.00 $55.00 $10,450.00 $90.00 $17,100.00
8013 (2) 8 Inch Schedule 40 Rigid PVC Conduit - Trenched LF 165 $98.00 $16,170.00 $65.00 $10,725.00 $36.00 $5,940.00 $40.00 $6,600.00 $174.00 $28,710.00 $41.00 $6,765.00 $70.00 $11,550.00 $75.00 $12,375.00
Total $8,963,695.00 $9,210,784.65 $9,245,975.00 $9,393,091.50 $9,654,055.40 $9,872,966.79 $10,131,948.25 $10,284,390.50
* Denotes Mathematical Error
Page 1 of 5
AGREEMENT AS TO PROFESSIONAL BOULEVARD AND VICINITY
This Agreement as to Professional Boulevard and Vicinity (“Agreement”) is
made this ______ day of _____________, 2019, by and between the Mayor and Council
of the City of Hagerstown, Maryland, a body corporate and politic (“City”), and the
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland, a body corporate
and politic and a political subdivision of the State of Maryland (“County”). The City
and the County may sometimes be referred to in this Agreement individually as a Party
or collectively as the Parties.
RECITALS
The Parties hereto have corporate boundaries which border one another at the
area known as Professional Boulevard and Vicinity as shown on Exhibit 1, attached
hereto and incorporated herein.
The Parties wish to enter into this Agreement to provide for cooperative
maintenance of the streets, bridge, and other infrastructure in and around Professional
Boulevard and Vicinity.
The Parties deem this Agreement to be mutually beneficial to maintain said
streets, bridge, and other infrastructure in accordance with the terms set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises
contained herein, the Parties agree as follows:
1. Recitals. The aforegoing recitals be and are hereby incorporated herein by
reference.
2. Stormwater Management Facility. The Stormwater Management Facility
depicted on Exhibit 1 is presently maintained by the Hagerstown-Washington County
Industrial Foundation, Inc. (“CHIEF”), subject to a written Memorandum of Agreement
dated April 2, 2012 (“MOA”), by and among the County, CHIEF, and Meritus
Endowment Development Company, Inc. The County shall assign all of its rights and
obligations under Paragraph VI. POST-CONSTRUCTION A. a. (as they specifically
relate to maintenance of the Stormwater Management Facility) of the MOA to the City,
meaning that the City shall assume maintenance responsibilities for the SWM BMP’s
beginning on or about ________, 2027. The County shall furnish and install required
reforestation in the pond and will warranty the plantings. The County shall provide the
Page 2 of 5
City with all of the hydrologic/hydraulic design report and as-built drawings of the
Stormwater Management Facility.
3. Professional Boulevard east of Antietam Creek. The County shall
complete the design, bidding, and construction of the street system within the City
limits east of Antietam Creek, as depicted on Exhibit 1. Upon construction of said
streets within the City limits, the City staff will recommend to Mayor and Council to
accept said streets for full City maintenance including pavement markings, pavement,
curb, sidewalk, and stormwater management structures. Upon acceptance, the City
shall include said streets in its annual report to State Highway Administration to obtain
additional highway user revenue to cover the paving maintenance. The parties shall
discuss a logical sharing of the responsibilities as to snowplowing to avoid “dead end”
areas to plow. For example, the City may agree to plow all of Professional Boulevard
and the roundabout at Yale Drive, with the County to plow Yale Drive. At or near the
execution of this Agreement, the City shall amend its Annexation Plan (Exhibit D to
Annexation Case No. A-2018-01) to be consistent with this Paragraph.
4. Driveway Location Design and Access. The County shall provide the
City with copies of all agreements made regarding driveway location design and access
control appearing within the City limits on Exhibit 1.
5. Forest Conservation Easements. The County shall continue to maintain
all forest conservation easements depicted on Exhibit 1 in perpetuity.
6. Drainage, Utility, & Revertible Easements. All drainage, utility, and
revertible easements within the area annexed by the City and shown on the County’s
Right-of-Way Plats 100-10-586 and 100-10-587 will be conveyed to the City. The City
shall maintain these easements in perpetuity.
7. Professional Boulevard west of Antietam Creek. The County shall
complete the design, bidding, and construction for the widening of existing Professional
Boulevard west of Antietam Creek, as well as its extension to the bridge over Antietam
Creek. The City shall provide a field inspector to assist the County field staff for the
widening of existing Professional Court. The City shall fund the widening of existing
Professional Court which is estimated to cost approximately $2,500,000. County shall
assist and support the City in applications for Appalachian Regional Commission grant
opportunities, and other grant opportunities.
8. Funding for Final Design Plan Revisions for Professional Boulevard
west of Antietam Creek. The City shall contribute up to $50,000 toward amending the
design plan for the purpose of finalizing access requests of property owners and the
Page 3 of 5
creation of stand-alone bid documents for the portion of Professional Boulevard west of
Antietam Creek.
9. Funding for Bridge Construction and Maintenance. The County shall
fund and construct the bridge spanning Antietam Creek depicted on Exhibit 1. All
major capital bridge maintenance in the future shall be funded in the following ratio:
a. 80% Federal Aid (as administered by the County);
b. 10% County; and
c. 10% City.
In addition, the City shall fund and perform all other routine bridge
maintenance, such as surface repairs, scupper maintenance, etc.
10. Finality. This Agreement, including Exhibit 1, is the Parties’ final and
complete agreement and supersedes all prior agreements for Professional Boulevard
and Vicinity between the Parties.
11. Effectiveness. This Agreement shall become effective on the date signed by
both Parties and shall remain in full force and in effect until terminated by written
mutual agreement of the Parties.
12. Assignment and Applicability. This Agreement cannot be assigned without
the written consent of both Parties.
13. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Maryland. Any suit involving any dispute or
matter arising under this Agreement shall be brought in the Circuit Court for
Washington County, Maryland, unless that court does not have subject matter
jurisdiction, in which case the action shall be brought in the District Court of Maryland
for Washington County. The parties hereto consent to such jurisdiction.
12. Notices. Notices required under this Agreement are effective if given to the
following, unless updated notice information is provided by either Party to the other in
the future:
If to the City:
City Clerk
1 West Franklin Street
Hagerstown, MD 21740
Page 4 of 5
With a courtesy copy to:
Jason Morton
Salvatore & Morton, LLC
82 West Washington Street, Suite 100
Hagerstown, Maryland 21740
If to the County:
County Clerk
100 West Washington Street
Hagerstown, MD 21740
With a courtesy copy to:
Kirk C. Downey, County Attorney
100 West Washington Street
Hagerstown, Maryland 21740
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be duly
executed and delivered.
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF
ATTEST: HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND
By:
Donna K. Spickler, Clerk Robert E. Bruchey, II, Mayor
Approved as to form and Recommended for approval:
legal sufficiency:
Jason Morton, City Attorney Rodney Tissue, City Engineer
Page 5 of 5
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ATTEST: OF WASHINGTON COUNTY,
MARYLAND
By:
Krista L. Hart, Clerk Jeffrey A. Cline, President
Recommended for County approval: Authorized for execution by the County:
Scott Hobbs, Director of Engineering Robert Slocum, County Administrator
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency:
Kirk C. Downey, County Attorney
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Construction Bid Award – Back Road
PRESENTATION DATE: November 12, 2019
PRESENTATION BY: Scott Hobbs, Director, Division of Engineering
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to award the Back Road contract to the lowest
responsive, responsible bidder, Lantz Construction DBA Building Systems of Hagerstown,
Maryland, in the amount of $1,913,175 for the base bid plus add alternate 1 and 2.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The project was advertised in the Herald Mail, on the County’s website,
and on the State of Maryland’s website, e-Maryland Marketplace. One (1) bid was received and
opened on Wednesday, May 8, 2019. FEMA has been reviewing eligible costs on the project for
several months since the bid opening. The bids have been evaluated and the low bid is in order.
The engineer’s estimate for the work is $1,750,000.
DISCUSSION: South County experienced significant flooding and damage to numerous roads
and structures in May 2018. This road was severely damaged and has been closed since the
flooding. The project involves the reconstruction of the road, shoulders, culvert; and stream restoration.
This is a design-build contract with a 300 consecutive calendar day contract. The anticipated
Notice to Proceed is in November 2019 with a scheduled completion in the summer of 2020.
The bid documents include Liquidated Damages in the amount of $500.00 per calendar day for
work beyond the completion date. The road will continue to be closed for the project duration.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is available budgeted funding in the Back Road Culvert 11/03
(BRG086) and Stormwater Retrofits (DNG039) projects in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP),
and FEMA reimburses eligible costs currently estimated at $368,000 on the project. The
Hoffmaster and Harpers Ferry project (DNG077) is covering local costs for the South County
flooding projects along with funds received for direct administrative costs. Final costs and
reimbursements for the flood event will be determined upon completion of the projects.
CONCURRENCES: Budget and Finance (Fiscal Impact)
ALTERNATIVES: This is the most cost effective and practical alternative to reopen the road.
The road was severely damaged in the flooding.
ATTACHMENTS: Aerial Map, Bid Tabulation
AUDIO/VISUAL TO BE USED: Yes (Aerial Map)
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
Back Road Repairs
àStructure Number: 11-03
Legend
Maze
Lane
BackRoad
BackRoad
¯
0 75 150 225 300Feet
- Limits of Work
POTO
MAC
RIVER
ITEM
Site 1 (Asphalt Road Repairs)1 1 LS 1,190,500.00 1,190,500.00
Site 2 (Asphalt Road/Shoulder Repairs)2 1 LS 352,975.00 352,975.00
Site 3 (Bridge Erosion Repair)3 1 LS 164,100.00 164,100.00
Add Alternate 1 (Concrete Road in lieu of Asphalt)4 1 LS 54,500.00 54,500.00
Add Alternate 2 (New Box Culvert Replacing Existing Bridge)5 1 LS 151,300.00 151,300.00
Add Alternate 3 (Additional Box Culvert)6 1 LS 255,950.00 255,950.00
Total: 2,169,325.00$
WASHINGTON COUNTY DIVISION OF ENGINEERING
BID TABULATION
BACK ROAD
BID OPENING: MAY 8, 2019
Hagerstown, MD
DBA Building Systems
Lantz Construction Co.
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Minimum Wage Analysis
PRESENTATION DATE: November 12, 2019
PRESENTATION BY: Sara Greaves, Chief Financial Officer, Rachel Brown, Director,
Human Resources
RECOMMENDED MOTION: For consideration to establish an approach for the FY2021
budget and future years.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: Commissioner Meinelschmidt requested the County’s plan of action to
address the minimum wage legislation through FY2025. The CFO presented options for
discussion on October 15, 2019 and was directed to bring back certain information.
DISCUSSION: The current minimum wage is $10.10 per hour. Maryland law makers passed
legislation to raise minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2025 through incremental yearly increases.
Current legislation
Below is the required minimum wage changes per Maryland legislation.
$10.10 Current
$11 on Jan. 1, 2020, 9% increase
$11.75 on Jan. 1, 2021, 7% increase
$12.50 on Jan. 1, 2022, 6% increase
$13.25 on Jan. 1, 2023, 6% increase
$14 on Jan. 1, 2024, 6% increase
$15 on Jan. 1, 2025, 7% increase
Previously discussed options
Option 1 – Increase entire scale by 49%
Estimated Cost - $30 million
Recommended – No
Option 2 – Create new scale and restructure employee classifications
Estimated Cost - $10-15M
Recommended – No
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
Option 3 – Move employees to closest step on scale who fall below stated minimum wage
Estimated Cost - $2M
Recommended – For discussion
Option 4 – Provide annual COLA’s of 2% to increase entire scale; plus, over the five year period
phase out Grades 4 and 5.
Estimated Cost - $8.75M
Recommended – For discussion
NEW - Option 5 – Increase all employee wages by the same amount of the minimum wage
increase.
Estimated Cost - $10.2M
Recommended – For discussion as a result of commissioner request. This option would
eliminate the current wage/step scale that the county utilizes which includes 8% between grades
and 2.5% between steps. This methodology would eliminate a standardization between grades
and steps. Staff would not recommend this option.
Current New Diff Hours per year Annual FT Emp Column1
$10.10 $11.00 $0.90 2080 $1,872.00 800 $1,497,600
$11.00 $11.75 $0.75 2080 $1,560.00 800 $1,248,000
$11.75 $12.50 $0.75 2080 $1,560.00 800 $1,248,000
$12.50 $13.25 $0.75 2080 $1,560.00 800 $1,248,000
$13.25 $14.00 $0.75 2080 $1,560.00 800 $1,248,000
$14.00 $15.00 $1.00 2080 $2,080.00 800 $1,664,000
FT Cost $8,153,600
PT Cost (option 3) $2,000,000
Total $10,153,600
NEW – Option 6 - Provide an annual COLA of 1% to increase entire scale; plus, over the five
year period phase out Grades 4 and 5.
An “In the middle” approach between options 3 and 4 was directed to be brought back.
Estimated Cost - $4.4M
Recommended – For discussion
While the above option represents a middle of the road approach as requested, there is concern
over it being associated as a result of the minimum wage legislation.
Wage history since 2010 shows step increases in four of those years, COLA’s in four of those
years, and no action in three of those years due to financial constraints.
With current step structure of 2.5%, It is prudent to offer a 1% COLA annually, even outside of
the minimum wage discussion. It would be a best practice to provide both a step and COLA
annually to maintain scale alignment and reward employees outside of the minimum wage
discussion.
Economic Development – Comments from the Chamber of Commerce
What will private sector do to address minimum wage legislation? There may be a variety of
ways that local business could react to the legislation which include; 1) raising prices to
consumers; 2) reducing employee benefits; 3) reduction in working hours; 4) laying off
employees; 5) increasing use of technology; 6) relocating business to other locations that have a
lower minimum wage; 7) reduction in owner salary; 8) delay or cancel expansion plans; 9) close
the business.
Other County Responses
Through research, we have discovered that similarly situated counties have not yet discussed an
approach for moving forward. However, they have stated that they anticipate COLA
adjustments on their entire scale or a separate part-time scale to meet the requirement. They have
yet to discuss with their county executives or commissioners funding mechanisms for these
COLA’s.
Considerations
Stability is an important component of County employment. Through the recession, the County
was able to retain all employees at the same pay and benefit levels, unlike other private business
or governments that may have laid off employees or enacted furloughs. This was due to
conservative planning from our predecessors. It has provided a valuable lesson in that long term
sustainability relies on conservative spending and flexibility of reserves. During those difficult
years, capital reserves were drawn down to support the County when revenues decreased. Many
economists predict that a decline or recession is in our near future, in the next 1 to 3 years. It is
difficult to predict when it will occur. The uncertainty that comes with the 2020 presidential
election may also impact the economy and business decisions. In addition, known factors such as
Kirwan and solutions for Fire & EMS issues are currently being discussed for funding.
Steps are programmed to be provided to existing personnel each year at 2.5%. By fiscal year
2025, existing employees will have received step increases totaling 12.5% over what they make
today.
The below chart represents the number of employees under minimum wage, including 2.5%
annual step. All positions represent part time employees except 1.
Year Min Wage 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
2020 11.00$ 155
2021 11.75$ 181 169
2022 12.50$ 326 242 181
2023 13.25$ 369 342 342 325
2024 14.00$ 381 378 371 342 342
2025 15.00$ 440 414 386 381 374 369
The County provides a rich benefit package to employees, including affordable health insurance
and pension plans. These benefits, on average, equate to approximately $9.86 per hour based on
an average wage of $56,485.
Closing Remarks
Minimum wage is a mandate that the County must provide for. The County has been proactive
in thinking about this legislation and the impact on both employees and local business.
Thoughtful consideration of both County employees and the County as a whole is of utmost
importance.
FISCAL IMPACT: Variable
CONCURRENCES: N/A
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: None
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: FY2019 Year End Report
PRESENTATION DATE: November 12, 2019
PRESENTATION BY: Sara Greaves, Chief Financial Officer
RECOMMENDATION: For informational purposes.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: FY2019 year-end summary will be provided.
DISCUSSION: The County ended the year in an overall positive manner, increasing fund
balance in the General Fund by $3.8 million. This positive net change provides for the County’s
cash reserve policy requirement at 17.92%.
Major Revenue Factors:
Property tax revenue exceeded budget by $1.0 million or 0.8%.
Income Tax revenue exceeded budget by $2.8 million or 3.4%.
Revenue from speed cameras came in under budget by $2.5 million or 4.9%.
Investment income was over budget by $1.5 million.
Major Expenditure Factors:
An additional transfer over what was originally budgeted of $2.8 million was made to
the Golf Course, Highway, and Capital Projects funds to offset operating shortfalls and
to provide for future project costs and one time expenditures.
General Fund departments came in under budget by $2.1M.
The OPEB payment was not made due to the trust’s funding ratio exceeding 100%,
which reduced expenditures by approximately $0.6 million.
An additional appropriation was required for the County’s health reserve of $0.6 million
due to an increase health care costs and use.
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
CONCURRENCES: N/A
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: Power Point Presentation, FY2021 Budget Schedule
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: None
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
Budget & Finance
FY2019 Year End Review
FY2019 General Fund
Revenues Expenditures Reserves
$238,524,392 $234,857,476 $3,666,916
Budget and Finance
Year End Review 1
FY2019 Revenue Highlights
Budget and Finance
Year End Review 2
FY19 Budget FY19 Actual Variance
Real Property Tax 113.7 113.5 (0.2)
Personal Property Tax 14.1 15.0 0.9
Income Tax 84.0 86.8 2.8
Speed Camera 4.8 2.4 (2.4)
Sale of Property 0.05 0.9 0.8
Interest Income 0.7 2.1 1.5
Recordation Tax 6.5 6.9 0.4
Commercial Permits 0.1 0.3 0.2
Other 3.5 3.9 0.4
Total 4.4
* Does not include grants/billables
FY2019 Expenditure Highlights
Budget and Finance
Year End Review 3
Significant Expenditures (over)/under budget
Health Insurance 0.6
General Fund Departments (2.1)
OPEB (0.6)
Capital 2.5
Highway 0.2
Golf Course 0.1
Total 0.7
General Fund Cash Reserve
Budget and Finance
Year End Review 4
FY18
39.1M or
17.54%
FY19
42.7M or
17.92%
FY2019 Significant Highlights
Budget and Finance
Year End Review 5
Significant Highlights of Other Funds
Highway Solid
Waste Golf Water Sewer
FY2019 Highway
Budget and Finance
Year End Review 6
Highway
Budget Actual Variance
Snow Removal 0.9 1.9 (1.0)
General Operations 2.0 1.6 0.4
Road Maintenance 5.3 4.9 0.4
Total (0.2)
FY2019 Solid Waste
Budget and Finance
Year End Review 7
Solid
Waste Tipping fees exceeded budget by $0.7M
Leachate costs exceeded budget by $0.9M
Other significant costs:
Certified Rebuild of the CAT 826G Compactor and general repairs to the
826H Compactor for the Department of Solid Waste: $800K
*General Fund appropriations -$961,700.00
FY2019 Golf
Budget and Finance
Year End Review 8
Revenues: under budget by 185K
Expenditures: under budget by 140K
Golf
*General Fund appropriations -$409,970.00
FY2019 Water
Budget and Finance
Year End Review 9
Revenues: on budget
Expenditures: 270K under budget
Water
*No FY2019 General Fund appropriations, however, may be
appropriation in future
FY2019 Sewer
Budget and Finance
Year End Review 10
Sewer Revenue: over budget by $1M
Expenditures: under budget by $500K
Capital Transfer to operating fund for cash reserve purposes.
*No FY2019 General Fund appropriations, however, may be appropriation
in future
FY2020
CURRENT BUDGET YEAR
Budget and Finance
Year End Review 11
Budget and Finance
Year End Review 12
FY
2021
Budget
Approach
Budget Schedule
Budget and Finance
Year End Review 13
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
BUDGET (CIP)
OPERATING
BUDGETS
Budget Released November 1, 2019 Budget Released December 13, 2019
Budget Due to
Budget & Finance
December 27, 2019 Budget Due to
Budget & Finance
January 10, 2020
BUDGET PRESENTATIONS
February 11, 2020 –April 21, 2020
For detailed information regarding the Budget Schedule, please see the attached schedule
documentation within the Agenda Report Form (ARF).
FY2021 Steps
Budget and Finance
Year End Review 14
Step 1
Begin with
FY2020 Budget
Step 2 Step Increases
Step 3 Mandates
Step 4 Safety Critical
Step 5
Other County Requests
- Efficiencies
- Reallocations
-Other Requests
Step 6 Outside Agencies
FY2021 Department Categories
Budget and Finance
Year End Review 15
State, federal or local mandates including: contract obligation; policy; and utility
Safety Critical
Efficiencies
Reallocations
Other Changes
Categories For
Departments
To Classify
Expenditures
Requests/Feedback
Budget and Finance
Year End Review 16
•Commissioner Requests
•Initiatives
•Feedback
Thank you
Sara Greaves, C.P.A.
Chief Financial Officer
Washington County, MD
(240) 313-2303
Connect with us
www.washco-md.net
1
Fiscal Year 2021 Tentative Budget Schedule
0BUCapital Improvement Budget (CIP) 1BUOperating Budgets
Budget released November 1, 2019 Budget released December 13, 2019
Budget due to Budget & Finance December 27, 2019 Budget due to Budget & Finance January 10, 2020
Budget Item Presentation By Tentative Date
Capital Improvement Capital Improvement Committee February 11, 2020
No BOCC Meeting February 18, 2020
Board of Education Elected Board February 25, 2020
Capital Improvement Capital Improvement Committee
General Fund Sara Greaves March 3, 2020
- Law Enforcement Sheriff Mullendore
- Emergency Services David Hayes
- Humane Society Colin Berry
- Community Funding Susan Buchanan
No BOCC Meeting March 10, 2020
Water Quality Funds TBD March 17, 2020
Solid Waste Fund Dave Mason
Airport Fund Garrison Plessinger
Hagerstown Community College Board of Trustees lunch presentation
General Fund Sara Greaves
- Information Technology TBD
- Wireless Communications TBD
- Division of Budget & Finance Sara Greaves
- Public Relations & Marketing Danielle Weaver
- Business Development Susan Small
Capital Improvement Capital Improvement Committee March 24, 2020
Washington County Free Library Board of Directors lunch presentation
General Fund Sara Greaves
- Election Board Kaye Robucci
- Health Department Earl Stoner
- Social Services Michael Piercy
- University of MD Extension Jennifer Thorn Bentlejewski
- Soil Conservation Elmer Weibley
- Weed Control Lane Heimer
2
Budget Item Presentation By Tentative Date
Public Hearing – Rate Changes County Legal Department March 31, 2020
Division of Public Works Andrew Eshleman
Grant Management Fund Susan Buchanan
Gaming Fund Susan Buchanan
Land Preservation Fund Jill Baker
HEPMPO Fund Jill Baker
No BOCC Meeting April 7, 2020
Capital Improvement Capital Improvement Committee April 14, 2020
General Fund Sara Greaves
- Circuit Court Kristin Grossnickle
- Orphans Court Jason Malott
- State’s Attorney Charles Strong
- County Commissioners Rob Slocum
- County Clerk Krista Hart
- County Administrator Rob Slocum
- Treasurer Todd Hershey
- County Attorney Kirk Downey
- Human Resources Rachel Brown
Capital Improvement Capital Improvement Committee April 21, 2020
General Fund Sara Greaves
- Plan Review & Permitting Ashley Holloway
- Engineering Scott Hobbs
- Construction Richard Eichelberger
- Zoning Appeals Ashley Holloway
- Planning & Zoning Jill Baker
- Museum of Fine Arts Rebecca Massie Lane
- Commission on Aging Amy Olack
- Women’s Commission Andi Overton
- Diversity Inclusion Committee Krista Hart
- Forensic Investigator Krista Hart
No BOCC Meeting April 28, 2020
Public Hearing at Hagerstown Community College, Kepler Theater, 6 p.m. May 12, 2020
Adoption of Budget Sara Greaves and BOCC May 19, 2020
Public Hearing Notice:
- Required notice of proposed property tax rate (constant yield).
- Tax change, if applicable, is not to exceed 21 days but no less than seven days. This includes the day of
the public hearing but not the day of the notice.
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Conveyance of Real Property to State of Maryland – Eastern and Jefferson Blvd (MD 64)
PRESENTATION DATE: November 12, 2019
PRESENTATION BY: Todd Moser, Real Property Administrator, Division of Engineering and Scott
Hobbs, Director, Division of Engineering
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the conveyance of real property consisting of 4,579
square feet in fee simple for zero consideration to the State of Maryland at the intersection of Eastern
Boulevard and Jefferson Boulevard (MD 64).
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The State of Maryland has requested the County convey of the right-of-way for
the intersection improvements at Eastern Boulevard and Jefferson Boulevard (MD 64).
DISCUSSION: Work along Jefferson Boulevard (MD 64) will include extending and adding turn lanes,
replacement of a culvert, and utility relocations. These improvements will be completed as part of the
Eastern Boulevard Widening Phase I project.
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
CONCURRENCES: County Attorney
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: Aerial Map
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: Yes (Aerial Map)
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
$
0 50 100 150 200Feet
Legend
Eastern Boulevard @ Jefferson Boulevard (MD 64)
- B.O.C.C Property to be Conveyed to State of MD
- Parcel Boundaries
Jefferson Boulevard (MD 64)Jefferson Boulevard (MD 64)
EasternBoulevard
EasternBoulevard
Board of County Commissioner Property Proposed Conveyance to State of Maryland 4,579 Sq. Ft / .105 Acres
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Correction of Conveyance Error
PRESENTATION DATE: November 12, 2019
PRESENTATION BY: Todd Moser, Real Property Administrator, Division of Engineering
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the conveyance of 0.936 +/- acres of previously
accepted roadbed (Blooming Meadows Court) back to the developer and to approve the conveyance of
roadbed back to the County after corrections are made.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The developer conveyed a small portion of a homeowner’s property in 2013
when transferring Blooming Meadows Court to the County.
DISCUSSION: County staff has worked with the developer and agreed to convey the accepted roadbed
back to the developer. After the developer has conveyed the small strip of land back to the property owner
the roadbed will be transferred back to the County.
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
CONCURRENCES: County Attorney
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: Aerial Map
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
Old
Nat
ional
Pike
(40)
Blooming Meadows Court
Blooming Meadows Subdivision
0 50 100 150 200Feet
$
County owned R/W to be conveyed to Developer in turnDeveloper will convey small R/W area to Lot 2 and remainingR/W will be conveyed back to Washington County.
Legend
- Parcel Boundaries
- County to Convey R/W to Developer
- Developer to Convey R/W to Lot 2
LOT 2
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Grant of Easement to State of Maryland
PRESENTATION DATE: November 12, 2019
PRESENTATION BY: Todd Moser, Real Property Administrator, Division of Engineering
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the grant of easement consisting of 178 square feet
located on Parcel 362, Tax Map 722 with Tax ID 19011224 on Main Street in Keedysville to the State of
Maryland for the Keedysville Main Street Urban Reconstruction Project.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The State of Maryland has offered $300 to the County for a 178 square feet
drainage easement.
DISCUSSION: The Main Street Urban Reconstruction Project involves work along 1.2 miles of Main
Street in the Town of Keedysville. Improvements include road resurfacing, new sidewalks, drainage
upgrades, pedestrian ramps, and bridge work over Little Antietam Creek.
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
CONCURRENCES: County Attorney
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: Aerial Map
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: Yes (Aerial Map)
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
MainStreet
MainStreet
Board of County Commissioners Grant of Easement to State of Maryland 178 Square Feet
0 25 50 75 100Feet
$- Board of County Commissioners Property
- Proposed Grant of Easement
- Parcel Boundaries
Legend
Washington County B.O.C.C South Main Street 0.9846 Acres
Proposed Keedysville B.O.C.C Grant of Easement
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Highway Department 2019-2020 Winter Weather Operations Update
PRESENTATION DATE: November 12, 2019
PRESENTATION BY: Andrew Eshleman, Director, Public Works; Zane Rowe, Deputy Director,
Public Works - Highways
RECOMMENDED MOTION: This presentation is for informational purposes only
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The Highway Department is preparing for the winter maintenance season and
will provide an overview of preparations taken and highlight the County’s Snow Removal Standard
Operating Procedures.
DISCUSSION: The following areas will be discussed.
• Equipment and vehicle preparation/inspections
• Safety and winter maintenance training
• Personnel management
• Plow route zones and snow removal road priority updates
• Operational Initiatives
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
CONCURRENCES: N/A
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: N/A
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Highway Department Position Reassignment Plan
PRESENTATION DATE: November 12, 2019
PRESENTATION BY: Andrew Eshleman, Director, Public Works; Zane Rowe, Deputy Director,
Public Works - Highways
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Request the Board of Washington County Commissioners approve
position reassignments within the Highway Department.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: Highway Department maintenance responsibilities have increased while
equipment, manpower resources, and capital investment have not. Adjustments within the Highway
Department organization are needed to adapt to current challenges and future expected trends. The
proposed adjustments are anticipated to provide assistance with operational efficiencies while creating
internal opportunities for career development.
DISCUSSION: The Highway Department has an FY20 $11.5 million operations and $500 thousand
capital budget, 88 full time employees that maintain County roads, stormwater facilities, sidewalks,
signs and pavement markings, provide fleet services, manage inmate crews, and responds to emergency
road conditions on a 24 hour/ 7 day week basis.
Since 2009, the total miles of road maintained increased from 850 to 895, stormwater ponds 50 to 150,
while the number of full time employees reduced from 92 to 88, and the Highway User Revenue
declined from a peak of $9 million per year to the present $870 thousand. As a representative example
of a challenge and problem to solve, the County has 43 plow trucks with an average age of 13 years
with 32 that meet the Vehicle/Equipment Replacement Guidelines requirements. A minimum of 33
trucks are needed to cover the winter snow removal routes zones. Each route requires 4-6 hours to
complete a single pass. Replacement of these 33 vehicles alone represents an initial investment of $7
million and future reoccurring annual investments of 4 per year or $1 million to sustain the fleet,
however, projected capital contributions only allow for 1-2 vehicles per year.
Projections show as the County continues to grow and develop, the number of road miles will increase,
while stormwater management, bike and pedestrian facilities will grow exponentially as new Federal
and State laws require those facilities. Environmental regulations and reporting that did not exist 10
years ago now consume a greater amount of staff attention and time to perform the same task. The
Highway Department must adapt to the trend and efficiently manage available resources to provide
expected services while remaining compliant with current regulations.
A vacant non-exempt Grade 13 Section Supervisor position that focused on crew level supervision in
the Central Section is proposed to be reclassified to an exempt Grade 16 Supervisor of Operations
position. The new position will assist with managing the Department from an organizational and work
planning prospective, regulatory compliance, serve in the absence of the Deputy Director, and allow
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
for continuous 24/7 supervisor management during weather and crisis incidents. In the current structure
there are four Grade 13 Supervisors in the Central Section which leads to redundancies particularly in
the mowing season as crew resources are further split.
A vacant full time Grade 6 Motor Equipment Operator (MEO) I position is proposed to be divided into
two Seasonal MEO I positions. During the 2018 salary study all MEO I employees with Commercial
Driver’s Licenses (CDL) were upgraded to the MEO II position with the exception of one employee
who didn’t have a CDL and has since retired. This position can be more fully utilized as two seasonal
positions during the summer months when there is additional need for laborer tasks such as flagging,
tree removal and trimming. The positions will be based in the Central Highway Section, but used where
needed across the County to supplement existing crews to provide sufficient resources to appropriately
balance the labor needed for the work activity.
The seasonal positions are effectively used elsewhere in the County as entry level positions for
candidates who may not have the experience/qualifications of higher level positions or individuals who
desire to only work part of year in construction.
The overall personnel adjustments are intended to capitalize on operational efficiencies across the
department and provide resources and expertise at the appropriate levels. The adjustments are not
anticipated to produce any wage cost or savings relative to current budgets.
Table: Proposed Position Changes
Central Supervisor - Grade 13
MEO I West - Grade 6
Supervisor of Operations - Grade 16
Seasonal MEO I (April - Sept) - Grade 6
Seasonal MEO I (April - Sept) - Grade 6
FISCAL IMPACT: None Anticipated.
CONCURRENCES: Chief Financial Officer
ALTERNATIVES: Keep positions as is and fill vacant positions
ATTACHMENTS:
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS:
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Northern Pump Station – Change Order
PRESENTATION DATE: November 12, 2019
PRESENTATION BY: Mark Bradshaw P.E, Deputy Director, Engineering Services
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Approve change order # 3 for EA Engineering, Science, and
Technology, Inc., PBC in the amount of $158,979.80.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: EA was awarded the contract to design the new Northern Pump Station at
location previous determined by the County. Once the plans were 90% complete, the easement
documents were prepared and appraisals were completed for the pump station lot and easements.
When the owners of the pump station lot reviewed the appraisal, they discovered that the entire
parcel was located within the 100 year floodplain. They were upset that the parcel was located
within the floodplain and decided not to sell the County the land needed for the pump station lot
and associated easements.
At this time, the County contacted Mr. Hoffman who owns the property to the south. Mr. Hoffman
has agreed to sell the County the land needed for the pump station lot and associated easement.
The pump station will be located approximately 2,000feet from its previous location thus requiring
major design changes.
For more detailed information regarding the design change, please refer to EA's proposal dated
October 25, 2019. Increase contract amount by $158,979.80.
DISCUSSION: N/A
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are budgeted in the Department of Water Qualities’ Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP) account (LIN042).
CONCURRENCES: Director, Division of Environmental Management
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: EA price proposal dated October 25m 2019 and Change Order
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
225 Schilling Circle
Hunt Valley, MD 21031
Telephone: 410-584-7000
EA Engineering, Science, Fax: 410-771-1625
and Technology, Inc., PBC www.eaest.com
25 October 2019
Washington County Division of Environmental Management
Department of Engineering Services
16232 Elliott Parkway
Williamsport, MD 21795
Attn: Mr. Mark Bradshaw, P.E.
Subject: Washington County Pump Station Upgrades
EA Proposal No. 0791316A
Dear Mr. Bradshaw:
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC (EA) is pleased to offer this proposal to the
Washington County Department of Water Quality (the County) to provide additional engineering
design for the Washington County Pump Station Upgrades project. EA will continue to engage
team subcontractors Fred Seibert and Associates (FSA) for survey and forest stand delineation
effort, ECS Mid-Atlantic, LLC (ECS) for geotechnical evaluation, and Dhillon Engineering, Inc.
(DEI) for electrical, mechanical and structural design support.
Previously, EA completed 30% and 60% design submittals and related permitting effort for the
project, in accordance with the original Scope of Work (September 2018). Prior to submittal of the
90% design, EA was informed by the County that due to land acquisition issues between the
County and a private property owner, an alternate location was necessary for the proposed New
Regional Pump Station. EA presents this proposal for revised scope (Task 4) based on the 11
September 2019 request for proposal provided by the County, and site visit to updated pump
station location in Washington County on 26 September 2019. In addition, EA has included
additional design effort that was required as part of this project (Task 5).
SCOPE OF WORK
This section of the proposal includes EA’s detailed project approach for performing the revised
scope of work.
Task 4 – Revised Scope
Task 5 – Extra Work
Task 4 – Revised Scope
The EA team will develop 90% and Final (100%) Contract Documents based on the revised scope
provided by the County, including updated pump station location and revised forcemain and
gravity main routing.
Mr. Bradshaw, Washington County Pump Station Design
25 October 2019, Page 2
Subtask 4.1 – Pre-Design
As a part of this task, EA and its subcontractors FSA and ECS will:
Prepare subdivision plat and request exemption from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
for subdivision of the parcel for the updated pump station on the Hoffman property south
of Cearfoss Pike, including preparation of an exhibit and easement plat, and attendance at
one BZA meeting. The County has assumed responsibility for negotiations with property
owner and obtaining property owner signature for the BZA affidavit.
Prepare easement documents for sewer lines at locations noted below, based on revised
routing of forcemain and gravity main. Revised easement plats will be signed and sealed
by a Maryland licensed surveyor. The County has assumed responsibility for easement
negotiations with property owners.
o Hagerstown Soccer Club area (Revise Prepared Easement)
o Grace Academy (Remove Prepared Easement)
o Hoffman Properties (Revise existing CREP easement for re-routed gravity main;
Prepare New Easement for new gravity main abutting existing CREP easement;
Prepare access easement for updated pump station location)
o Eby Property (Prepare New Easement)
o Bostetter Property (Revise Prepared Easement)
Perform all necessary survey work to establish property and easement boundaries and
identify utility crossings for revised pump station location and revised forcemain/gravity
main routing, including roadway right-of-way widths. Survey effort will include field-
run topo in rights-of-way, supplemented with LIDAR outside the rights-of-way as
necessary.
Provide subsurface exploration and geotechnical evaluation in the vicinity of the updated
pump station location, including collection of three soil borings extended to 25 feet below
existing surface and final report. Due to shallow boring refusal on bedrock anticipated in
this area, a five-foot core of the bedrock will be completed at two of the boring locations,
with the third boring extended to the full depth of 25 feet via rock coring, as necessary.
Lab testing for collected borings will include natural moisture tests, gradation analysis,
Atterberg Limits, and up to one proctor.
Subtask 4.2 – Design
Design effort at the updated pump station location will include:
Pump station re-design, including pump station enclosure with integral suction lift
pumps, verification of pump sizing based on revised forcemain routing, site layout and
grading, and erosion and sediment controls.
o Upgrade to existing access driveway, including re-paving utilizing existing SHA
approved entrance to the property, with new stone access driveway after crossing
of existing culvert. EA assumes no additional permitting effort necessary to
complete driveway upgrades.
o Electrical conduit routing for power at updated pump station location.
Routing of approx. 2,900 LF of additional 15-inch SDR 26 PVC Heavy Wall gravity
main from 60% Design Manhole S-1 to revised pump station location, including 8-inch
stubs at all new manholes.
Mr. Bradshaw, Washington County Pump Station Design
25 October 2019, Page 3
Re-routing of approx. 7,200 LF of forcemain from revised pump station location to
connect at 60% Design forcemain location on Bostetter Property at approx. STA. 72+00.
Subtask 4.3 – Design Documents
EA anticipates the Design Documents will include:
Drawing Set with approximately 75 sheets, based on 60% Design Sheet List. Sheets
requiring significant revision due to updated pump station location include:
Maugans Meadow Pump Station – Sewer main routing for approx. 2,900 LF of
additional gravity main to updated pump station location
New Regional Pump Station – Re-routing of approx. 7,200 LF of forcemain
New Regional Pump Station Building (revised as needed)
New Regional Pump Station Electrical/Controls (revised as needed)
Basis of Design Report
Technical Specifications
Engineer’s Cost Estimate
Subtask 4.4 – Permitting
As a part of this subtask, EA will:
Prepare and submit MDE Non-Tidal Wetlands and Waterways Joint Permit Application
for construction in wetlands and floodplains, and temporary disturbance at waterways.
Updated pump station location and re-routed sewer main will require revisions to JPA
and related documents developed during 60% Design.
Revise Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) and Forest Conservation Easement Plat for
relocated New Regional pump station and sewer main re-routing, as necessary, and
recalculate forest conservation requirement. EA assumes offsite mitigation on County’s
Cascade property will continue to be feasible.
Detailed level-of-effort considerations include:
1. Design drawings, Basis of Design Report, Technical Specifications and Engineer’s Cost
Estimate developed in the 60% Design will be utilized as basis for revised scope.
2. EA assumes updated pump station location will be adequate for the proposed package
pump station enclosure, and able to accommodate parcel up to 150 ft x 150 ft.
3. EA assumes updated pump station location is not located in the floodplain, and therefore
no additional hydrologic nor hydraulic modeling will be necessary for the JPA or other
State or County permits.
4. Additional design effort for new electrical service at updated pump station location is
excluded. EA assumes electrical service will be provided at the site by electrical utility.
5. This Scope of Work excludes additional design effort for stormwater management
Task 5 – Extra Work
This task includes additional design effort that was completed at the direction of and based on
discussion with the County, during previous design submittals. The primary scope changes that
occurred during the pre-design, 30% and 60% design milestones are described below.
Mr. Bradshaw, Washington County Pump Station Design
25 October 2019, Page 4
1. Revised forcemain and gravity main routing and revised and/or additional easements as
necessary, including:
Re-routing of forcemain through Bostetter Property and new easement, based on
agreement between County and private property owner;
Extension of gravity main in Cedar Lawn area and revised easement, for coordination
with County’s future design and construction of McCleary Hill subdivision (by
others);
Re-routing of gravity main in Maugans Meadows area, based on conditions field-
verified by County
2. Additional Wetland Delineation, including additional site visit and revisions to report,
based on re-routed forcemain through Bostetter Property
3. Additional upgrades at Maugansville Road pump station, including:
Design of new wet well, based on inadequate volume of existing wet well;
Design of package pump station enclosure, based on determined need for upgraded
pump sizing and related equipment;
PROPOSED SCHEDULE
The following schedule is anticipated by EA, exclusive of County review and permitting
approvals.
Pre-Design Activities NTP + 30 working days
90% Design Submittal NTP + 60 working days
Final (100%) Submittal Receipt of 90% Review Comments + 20 working days
Permitting TBD
Construction Phase Per County Schedule
PROPOSED FEE
EA will complete this scope of work on a fixed price basis as shown in Attachment 1. Efforts
will be conducted in accordance with Washington County Contract PUR-1334.
EA appreciates this opportunity to provide these services to Washington County. Please call us
at 410-584-7000 if you have any questions.
Sincerely yours,
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC
Regina Cagle Irr, P.E.
Project Manager
cc: Sam Davis, P.E. (EA)
ATTACHMENT 1
Price Proposal
ITEM Job Classification Hourly Rate Number of Hours Price Extended
(rate x hours)
A Project Manager $169.95 144 $ 24,472.80
B Professional Engineer (Water Resources)$140.08 6 $ 840.48
C Professional Engineer (Environmental)$130.81 209 $ 27,339.29
D Professional Engineer (Structural)$159.65 16 $ 2,554.40
E Professional Engineer (Mechanical/Electrical)$159.65 32 $ 5,108.80
F Professional Engineer (Civil/Land Development)$139.05 0 $ -
G Professional Engineer (Geotechnical)$128.75 53 $ 6,835.00
H Design Engineer (Water Resources)$101.97 0 $ -
I Design Engineer (Environmental)$95.79 0 $ -
J Design Engineer (Structural)$103.00 24 $ 2,472.00
K Design Engineer (Mechanical/Electrical)$93.01 48 $ 4,464.43
L Design Engineer (Civil/Land Development)$87.55 362 $ 31,693.10
M Design Engineer (Geotechnical)$97.85 0 $ -
N CAD $77.25 206 $ 15,913.50
O Sr.Environmental Specialist $139.05 28 $ 3,893.40
P Environmental Specialist $97.85 140 $ 13,699.00
Q Property Surveyor $82.40 88 $ 7,251.20
R Survey Crew Chief $77.25 92 $ 7,107.00
S Survey Crew Member $56.65 92 $ 5,211.80
T Clerical $61.80 2 $ 123.60
Sub Total $ 158,979.80
Phase I Design Services Mod - Final Design Price Proposal
New Regional Pump Station
Relocated the proposed pump station approximately 2,000 feet to the south and redesign the gravity sewer and forcemain.
EA was awarded the contract to design the new Northern Pump Station at location previous determined by the County. Once the plans
were 90% complete, the easement documents were prepared and appraisals were completed for the pump station lot and easements.
When the owners of the pump station lot reviewed the appraisal, they discovered that the entire parcel was located within the 100 year
floodplain. They were upset that the parcel was located within the floodplain and decided not to sell the County the land needed for the
pump station lot and associated easements.
At this time, the County contacted Mr. Hoffman who owns the property to the south. Mr. Hoffman has agreed to sell the County the
land needed for the pump station lot and associated easement. The pump station will be located approximately 2,000 feet from its
previous location thus requiring major design changes.
For more detailed information regarding the design change, please refer to EA's proposal dated October 25, 2019. Increase contract
amount by $158,979.80.
TO:
Consultant:
Contractor:
Vendor:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
WASHINGTON COUNTY MARYLAND
100 WEST WASHINGTON STREET, HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND 21740-4735 CHANGE ORDER
Change Order No.
Contract No.
Purchase Order No.
Oracle Account No.
Project Title: Date: Oct 30, 2019
The contract time will: increase decrease remain the same by: 90 calendar days working days
Description of Change:
The completion date, incorporating the changes included in this change order, is: Feb 1, 2020
The original contract sum was: $360,432.60
Net changes by previous change orders: $11,005.00
Contract sum prior to this change order: $371,437.60
By this Change Order, the contract sum will be changed by: $158,979.80
The new contract sum including this change order will be: $530,417.40
The Consultant/Contractor/Vendor shall not commence with the work described hereon until this form is executed by all agents.
Consultant: Finance:
Contractor/Vendor: Purchasing:
EA Engineering, Sciences and Technology, Inc., PBC
225 Schilling Circle
Hunt Valley, MD 21031
RQ-15,360
PUR-1334 515000-32-42010-LIN042-DSGN00000
Approving Agency: County Administrator:
Outside County Entities: Please email the signed form to ChangeOrder@washco-md.net.
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Install sewer prior to Hagers Crossing paving their new entrance onto McDade Road.
PRESENTATION DATE: November 12, 2019
PRESENTATION BY: Mark Bradshaw P.E, Deputy Director, Engineering Services
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to award a contract to Huntzberry Brother, Inc.in the
amount of $40,800 to install 240 feet of forcemain prior to paving Hagers Crossing new connection
to McDade Road.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The developer for the Hagers Crossing project has started construction on
the next phase of their project. The phase they are working on now includes installing an entrance
onto McDade Road that includes an accel and decel lane. The total length of new paving is
approximately 215 linear feet. The contractor is planning on paving the new street entrance this
fall.
The forcemain for the Capacity Management Project is designed to be on the same side of the road
as the new entrance to Hagers Crossing is being installed. I requested a price proposal from the
on-site contractor, Huntzberry Brothers Inc, to install the forcemain prior to performing the paving.
By having the contractor install the forcemain prior to paving, we will eliminate expensive
pavement repair if we wait to install the forcemain after the paving is completed.
DISCUSSION: N/A
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are budgeted in the Department of Water Qualities’ Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP) account (LIN042).
CONCURRENCES: Director, Division of Environmental Management
ALTERNATIVES: Wait and include this work in the Capacity Management project when it is
advertised.
ATTACHMENTS: Huntzberry Brothers Inc. quote.
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
Huntzherry Brothers
INCORPORATED SINCE 1966
Submitted To: Washington Co. Div. of Environmental Mgmt.
Ph: 240-313-2615
Date: 10/23/2019
Attn: Mark Bradshaw
Fax: 240-313-2601
Street: 16232 Elliott Parkway
Job Name: 16" Force Main Stub along McDade Road
Ply, State, Zip: Williamsport, MD 21795
Proposal No. 19-224A Rev, 1
The following is our proposal to furnish all labor, material, equipment and sub -contractors to perform specified
site work. Pricing is based upon information provided and scope of work in this proposal.
1) Furnish and Install 240 LF of 16" DIPS DR 11 HDPE Pipe along McDade Road (Unclassified)
Scope: MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC
1 LS
16" DIPS DR 11 HDPE PIPE WITH TRACER WIRE
240 LF
CAP FOR TESTING
2 EA
HYDROSTATIC TEST
1 LS
MARK ENDS WITH 2" X 4" MARKER
2 EA
ASSOCIATED BEDDING AND WASTE SPOILS
1 LS
ROCK REMOVAL
1 LS
UNDERCUT AND BACKFILL FOR UNSUITABLE SOILS
EXCLUDED
CONSTRUCTION STAKEOUT AND SOILS TESTING
EXCLUDED
FIANDHOLE BOXES FOR TRACER WIRE
EXCLUDED
EXCLUSIONS:
Compaction greater than 95% of standard proctor, electrical of any kind,
engineering/stakeout, handling of hazardous materials, landscaping/sod, soils testing,
permits/fees, removal of buried debris, abandon ex. utilities, handhole boxes for tracer wire,
removal of materials created by other trades, replacing of safety or tree protection fencing,
spring control, unsuitable soils, gas, relocation of existing utilities
Anything not specifically Included is excluded
Payment to be as follows: Net 30 Days
All Material is guaranteed to be as specified. All work to be completed in a substantial manner
according to specifications submitted, per standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from above
specifications involving extra cost will be executed only upon written orders, and will become an
extra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents,
or delays beyond our control. Owner to carry fire, tornado and other necessary insurance. Our
workers are fully covered by Workman's Compensation Insurance
Authorized Signatit d,,�
Note: This proposal may be withdrawn if not accepted in 30 days.
Accepted by:
21536 Chewsville Road, Smithsburg, MD 21783
301-739-8036 1 info@hunt2berrybrothers,com
huntzborrybrothors.com
$40,800.00
-
Mom
VA
.. ....,. ... _. � - _ .. ,`. _ °_ •-; .- ... .. ._._ ,�:_ .c � ate,-_:;. , .}--.
d.k:aRoo
``- � L _ - tt4� 1\,� I�`�'5,,"�� :rYY '�-+,bar ��`vr •� S�`1 Y� � f q9,� �-''�
s r� 'c <: �� k > .{ ',#• •�' 'S. _ )ram. :Z. _ � �5.3.. • `� -� �.
"10,
?�.•� ri. -i % •� '�rTM�,y� :3a\,a_�.- � - �e*�Fw''.
- k�� � •- J� .: - K - . - er+ = � -�` v, .ilk
- ,,�. as.'F:y wlyr � •'� � "� ,"' '• '�. � 1- is .-,�':a. ^ - � � -4 r C�� ', as.•- . "``cch�s�y� _ 4` _ brr•.}`��;�Jyt••��y�.T��`•`r`' > �\�`
' - � tea )r y ,i. �. - '�•
.. -•; � ti ar. x °� `, `fin t ri `. ;4 ���:::,.,,�^ �; '�. :?.
- - _- _ .. .. ... �.._.._. __ .. .`�3t�t-_:- •."� 0l„1-.c•..>�a'y.'�_e._. _ � .. � _ _ > -�5!,"-*��'_�'��c ��_ _ate `^��.
'7Q
-7,
'00
Sl
k 0-vP"
I rl
M
At
Y
�`S s - ?- . ,y'Y1J•?i `� r'// ht �' I� ��1 Ji(;��a � � �' � r�r"� �-
'�; `L r <, �,;! ._ .�. _ �" .'' �' �-`;� —'I �` � sue•..,
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Install sewer line under MD 144.
PRESENTATION DATE: November 12, 2019
PRESENTATION BY: Mark Bradshaw P.E, Deputy Director, Engineering Services
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to award a contract to Fayetteville Contractors Inc. (FCI) in the
amount of $160,336.00 to install gravity sewer under MD 144.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The Department’s Capacity Management Capital Improvement Project (CIP)
includes extending the gravity sewer from the McCleary Hill project. The terminal manhole being installed
for McCleary Hill, on the South side of MD 144, will be installed exit lane at the right-of-way line. The
County needs to extend the gravity from this manhole under MD 144 westward toward US 40 were it will
connect with the new forcemain being installed from the Maugansville area.
To install the sewer under MD 144, a casing must be jack and bored under the roadway. Jack and boring
requires a launching pit to be excavated to install on McCleary Hill side of MD 144. The launching pit
would need to be 38’ long by at least 12’ wide and 18’ deep. To perform this work after the McCleary Hill
project is completed would be very costly and a inconvenience to McCleary Hill contractors and residents.
The exit land would need to be closed for a minimum of 2 weeks and would require extensive restoration
to pavement only one (1) year old.
To reduce the cost associated with installing the sewer under MD 144, the County requested a price proposal
from FCI to perform this work. FCI is the utility contractor for the McCleary Hill project and will being
installing the sewer associated with this project.
DISCUSSION: N/A
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are budgeted in the Department of Water Qualities’ Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
account (LIN042).
CONCURRENCES: Director, Division of Environmental Management
ALTERNATIVES: Wait and include this work in the Capacity Management project when it is advertised.
ATTACHMENTS: Fayetteville Contractors Inc. quote. Project engineer’s estimate, Map
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
October 9, 2019
Excavation Quotation:
Project: Sanitary Sewer Manhole Plan for McCleary Hill
Location: West Washington Street, Hagerstown, Md.
FCI Bid Number: LGD-1930
Reference Bid Drawings: Washington County, Md Division of Environmental Management
Drawing Dated August 2019.
Summary of Quotation:
Installation of a 15" sanitary sewer main line from existing manhole 180-370 to proposed
manhole 180-388. (Work includes: Layout, use of concrete jersey barrier barricades on
each side of the road for traffic protection, excavation, 6" layer of CR6 stone bedding,
36" diameter x .500" wall thickness steel casing installed by horizontal boring, 15" SDR-26
pvc pipe supported by rail system inside of the casing, masonry bulkheads at each end
of the casing, 60" diameter precast concrete manhole structure with HDPE interior liner and
a 30" diameter non -watertight frame and cover, CR6 stone backfill to 12" over top of the
pipe in the trench line, earth backfill utilizing the excavated material up to sub -grade
elevations, permanent seeding with straw mulching of the disturbed area, vacuum testing,
and rock excavation by mechanical breaker method.)
(76 If including 46 If of horizontal boring.)
ProjectBid Price: .....................................................................................$ 160,336.00
Exclusions:
• No inspection, tapping, or utility user fees.
• No permits or permit fees.
• No compaction testing, material testing, or soil testing.
• No removal or replacement of unsuitable material.
• No excavation of unsuitable soils or poor bearing soils below design sub -grade elevations.
• No processing, handling or transportation of contaminated soils.
• No existing asphalt paving repair or replacement.
• No removal or relocation of existing utility lines, utility poles, or guy wires.
• No maintenance or watering of grass areas after germination.
P.O. Box 610 / Fayetteville, Pennsylvania 17222-0610
Phone: (717) 352-2186 / Fax: (717) 352-2781 / Direct Fax: (717) 352-2187
Web: www.fayettevillecontractors.com / Email: FCI(@fayettevinecontractors.com
PA Home Improvement Contractor License #000899. MD Home Improvement Commission License #121647
Fayetteville Contractors, Inc.
Excavation Quotation. (cont'd.)
Page two of two.
Notes:
Requested work not mentioned in the above scope of work is considered an extra and will not
be performed by Fayetteville Contractors, Inc. without the receipt of a signed change order by
the Owner or representative of the Owner.
The sanitary sewer line was figured as being installed with skilled and experienced laborers
and not with a licensed plumber.
Bid price is valid for 30 days.
Terms of Payment: On the 2511 of each month a completed invoice detailing the amount due
towards the contract will be submitted to the Owner. Payment is due 15 days after date of invoice.
After 15 days, 1-1/2% service charge per month will be applied.
Retention: No retainage (0%) will be held against the billings.
Default: In the event of default, the Owner agrees to pay all reasonable attorneys' fees,
collection costs, and costs associated with the collection of any delinquent or deficiency balance.
The Owner shall hereby guarantee all amounts due under this contract and promise to pay all
amounts due on demand. I understand that Fayetteville Contractors, Inc. may seek payment from
the Owner without exhausting all of its remedies against the applicant first.
All material is guarantees to be as specified. All work to be complied in a workmanlike manner
according to standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from above specifications involving
extra costs will be executed only upon written orders, and will become an extra charge over and
above the estimate. All agreements are contingent upon strikes, accidents, or delays beyond our
control. The Owner shall carry fire, tornado and other necessary insurance. Our workers are fully
covered by Workmen's Compensation Insurance.
This proposal may be withdrawn by us if not accepted within 30 days.
Lonnie G. Doyle
Project Manager/ Chief Estimator
Acceptance of Proposal by Owner:
The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are
authorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above.
Owner:
Date:
P.O. Box 610 / Fayetteville, Pennsylvania 17222-0610
Phone: (717) 352-2186 / Fax: (717) 352-2781 / Direct Fax: (717) 352-2187
Web: www.f-ayetteviRecontractors.com / Email: FCI@fayettevillecontractors.com
PA Home Improvement Contractor License #000899. MD Home Improvement Commission License #121647
Washington County Pump Upgrades
Engineer's Cost Estimate - McCleary Hill
Orfnhnr 2n19
100
GRAVITY MAIN - McCLEARY HILL
100.1
S/S Trench Excavation
Excavation of Common Earth and material placement (cut to fill), in area of
SS installation (not incl jack and bore section).
$15.00
100
BCY
$1,500
100.2
Sheeting and Shoring
Sheeting and shoring in area of SS pipe Installation (not Incl jack and bore
section)
$8,000.00
1
LS
$8,000
100.3
Jack and bore
Jack and bore incl. steel casing pipe, casing spacers, end seals, sacrificial
anodes, E&S controls, dewatering, restoration. Includes materials and
Installation.
$900.00
60
LF
$54,000
100.4
Jack and bore pit excavation - Soil
Excavation of Common Earth
$15.00
110
CY
j $1,700
100.5
Jack and bore pit excavation - Rock
Rock Removal in area of bore pit Installation, assume rock below 6 it BGS.
$85.00
210
CY
$17,900
100.6
Pipe Bedding
Crusher Run CR-6 (not incl jack and bore section)
$60.00
20
CY
$1,200
100.7
Backfill
Pipe trench backfill - trench exc minus pipe bedding (not incl jack and bore
section)
$6.00
80
BCY
$500
100.8
Gravity - MH 180-370 to 180-388
15" PVC DR26 Heavy Wall Sewer Pipe
$180.00
90
LF
$16,200
100.9
60" Manhole
Pre -Cast Concrete Manhole with frame and cover. Includes material,
installation and testing.
$12,600.00
1
EA
$12,600
100.10
Small Qty Equipment Usage
Equipment and crew daily cost for 10 days
$1,500.00
10
DAY
$15,000
100.11
Testing
Low Pressure Air Testing
$2,000.00
1
LS
$2,000
Subtotal
$130,600
100.12
Mobilization
Mob - Assume 5% of subtotal
$6,600.00
1
LS
$6,600
100.13
Site Prep
Site Prep - Assume 5% of subtotal
$6,600.00
1
LS
$6,600
CONTINGENCY (10%)
$14,400
TOTALI
1
$158,200
x
z
z
0
a
�
_
a
a
�
IZ •
J
.4